If you haven’t noticed, camera sales are down. I mean, they’re way down. Unsurprisingly, everyone’s scrambling to find a reason why. There’s a video floating around from Mayflower Concepts that, at the very least, explains what is not the cause for the camera sales drop. If you don’t have 50 minutes to watch it for yourself, here’s the “TL;DR” version: It’s not due to the rise of phones with cameras – at least, not in the way you think. It’s not because the economy is in the tank, as most camera manufacturers claim on their financial reports. There’s simply no strong correlation between any of the global financial crises, or the simple existence of cameras on phones, to have any reason to believe either is the cause for a huge drop in sales.

Mayflower points out a number of bone-headed moves camera manufacturers are guilty of, but one thing mentioned that I think is the biggest hurdle for most new or existing customers is this:

And this:

As well as this:

Modern cameras, in essence, are way too complicated. In an age of simplified and accessible technology, cameras are going in the opposite direction.

Before we go further, I must make the following clear: I am not a professional photographer. I don’t sell my middling skills for money, and my interest in photography is purely for my own enjoyment and, occasionally, for other people’s benefit. I am, however, someone who has spent the last 15 years professionally analyzing and explaining technology trends in some fashion or another.

I also have a mother, a sister, a brother-in-law, a girlfriend, and numerous other friends and colleagues, who all love photography. Almost none of them would ever be bothered to pick up any of the cameras above. Ever. I know this because I’ve shown them pictures of the above cameras, and just about every one of them balked. Direct quotes: “What’s with all the dials/buttons?” “Who really needs all of that?” “Who buys these cameras?” (Well, I know of one person who bought the Nikon Df, but that person openly admitted it was more for appearances than functionality).

As further anecdotal evidence: My girlfriend thinks my full-frame DSLR is ‘intimidating’ to use, and she vastly prefers her simple mirrorless camera with its touch screen. My mother, who’s had film cameras available to her for most of her life, turned her nose up at a basic DSLR I offered for her use when she decided to learn digital photography – “Too many buttons, too complicated,” she said. Eventually, she begrudgingly accepted that camera for the purposes of learning, but I know she never used it again after her 10-week class was over. (I also got weekly phone calls where she told me how overly complicated the thing was. Mind you, this woman has worked in the IT sector since the 1960’s. She has machine programming and COBOL as a means of comparison.) I’m sure my sister and brother-in-law could be convinced one day to buy into something a little more capable than the cameras on their phones and the Fujifilm Instax they own, but I’m not pushing my luck.

This all drives home my point: Camera sales are probably down because of their needless complexity.

Apple recently deployed a website dedicated to the surprisingly incredible photos taken with iPhones, and they’re hardly the first to boast how great photos can be taken with a mere phone. While it’s reasonably certain that the advent of phones with cameras may not have been directly responsible for a drop in dedicated camera sales, I would imagine the rapidly improving user experience of smartphones might have. Even with a bog standard camera app for your smartphone, along with the intelligence available via the silicon inside that phone, it’s rather easy to make fantastic images. Mind you, what most people have available to them on their phone are a few UI controls on a touchscreen for adjustments and a way of activating the shutter. That’s it.

No dials. No buttons. No complex menus. No fuss.

…And no modern dedicated camera can match that simplicity.

Sure, not all smartphone photos are great, but the same could be said about photos from dedicated cameras. It’s a moot point. Consumers have an intuitive, simple way to take photos that yield reasonable results. Nobody ever had to go to a class or spend hours scouring the internet to learn how to make their camera phone work. Modern dedicated cameras are the exact opposite of this experience.

Professional photographers and advanced enthusiasts tend to go out of their way to learn how their cameras function. They learn how to control exposure to get the exact image they want. The vast majority of consumers – much like my family and friends – couldn’t be bothered to learn all of the subtleties that go into photography. They want to capture moments as best as they can with as little fuss possible. They’re not professionals, they’re not enthusiasts, and they have no intention on becoming either.

Also worth pointing out is the fact that professional photographers and advanced enthusiasts are not the majority of the market. They are a small but vocal minority who spend lots of money. Camera companies are spending too much time, R&D, and marketing effort, to ensure these users remain in the fold, while they simultaneously forego the rest of their potential customer base. Manufacturers may not be consciously doing it, but that’s what’s happening. The industry’s sales deficit is rooted in the fact that the mass market is where they previously made most of their profits.

What I’m suggesting is that every mid- to high-end camera that is cranked out today by a major manufacturer is, essentially, a complicated evolution of the film camera, with a mess of controls to match. You’ve got modes and dials and buttons, settings for ISO and apertures to worry about. Pros and advanced amateurs might groan and say, “Well, all anyone needs to do is learn how their camera works, and they’ll get the photos they want.” Yes, but, again, the people who do go out of their way to learn how to shoot in manual mode are a small subset of the potential market, just as people who learn to build and fix cars or computers are the minority of drivers and computer users. Shooting in manual mode is not an enjoyable experience for most people. It’s about as much fun as carrying around a load of camera gear.

There are a number of advanced compacts and mirrorless cameras which are almost the size of a basic compact camera and not far off from the size of a smartphone. A lot of these cameras have very nice sensors inside, and they’re more than capable for the majority of photographers out there. I’ve shown a number of these devices to friends and family, and they have indicated that such cameras are far more approachable. In my opinion, these cameras should be the new, cheap, easy-to-use compact cameras of our time… but they aren’t.

First, most of the cameras I’m referring to are just flat-out expensive. There are few people who could be convinced that a Panasonic GM5 and LX100 are worth $900 each, unless those people are advanced enthusiasts who are already predisposed to liking such cameras. The Fujifilm X30 and Sony RX100 Mark II are a bit better at $600, but, again, not exactly in ‘impulse buy’ territory.

These cameras should be sold for $300-400. Tops. I’m not suggesting a race to the bottom, similar to what is already happening now in the entry-level DSLR category or with compact cameras before that. I’m also not suggesting that it doesn’t cost a bit of money to manufacture larger sensors and the accompanying lenses for each device. I’m saying small, decent quality cameras should not be premium products.

More importantly, the aforementioned cameras are still far more complex and unintuitive than they need be, putting a steep learning curve in the way between customers and their goal of capturing moments. People want the ‘point-and-shoot’ mentality of their phone with better results. Again, I don’t think you could convince the average consumer that they need to know everything about focal lengths, apertures, ISO values, and shutter speeds. I do think you can teach them, “Portrait mode maximizes the focus on your subject while blurring out the background,” as the camera intelligently opens up the aperture, drops down the ISO as low as it can go, chooses an appropriate shutter speed for the focal length, all while the metering system finds the face of the subject. “Action mode freezes motion and ensures your subject is completely in focus,” as the camera bumps up the ISO and shutter speed. Heck, an interchangeable lens camera should be able to suggest, “Use [x] lens(es) for best results.” No camera available today does this, even those with the currently available ‘scene’ modes built in (I’ve tried a number of them, and they all suck).

I mean, really, why does any camera manufactured in 2015 not do this with aplomb? If the majority of people want somewhat pleasing photos without going through all the work, manufacturers should learn to at least get them most of the way there. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before smartphones get to the point where they’re programmed well enough to achieve complex ‘scene’ modes that take most of the guess-work out of photography, so there’s no reason not to do this for dedicated cameras. If customers want to learn how the decisions of automated modes are made, they will seek out that information – and they will have better photos because they did. If they don’t, they should at least be left with reasonably satisfying results.

If manufacturers want to sell cameras, they should realize customers will see value in a product if it delivers significantly better image quality than their phone and comes in an intelligent, easily managed package and is reasonably priced. However, based on the public rumination of your typical camera CEO, I don’t think this will happen until it’s far too late. Fuji is chasing a niche market. Sony is throwing every feature they can at the wall to see what sticks, but usability improvements still sit on the table. Canon and Nikon seem to think the DSLR will last forever in its current state, so long as they keep adding small improvements. Samsung made a few steps towards introducing an intelligent camera, but most of the features they push are of the ‘gee-wiz’ variety rather than useful additions for the uninitiated. Panasonic and Olympus get the portability bit right, but their cameras suffer from the same ‘gee-wiz’ gimmicks as Samsung instead of making of honest-to-goodness usability improvements.

As I see it, the photo industry is at the precipice of permanent contraction, and I don’t know if anyone has the guts to turn it around in a meaningful way. I don’t think making an intelligent, quality camera that does 90% of the work is going to dissuade people from learning to handle cameras in the traditional way, driving them towards more expensive and capable equipment. I do think that not making an intelligent, quality camera will lead to further declining sales as fewer people come up with reasons to buy a camera that isn’t already included with another device they already own.

This guest post was contributed by Michael Heath, a senior IT staff member and an IT product analyst for the University of Pennsylvania since 2001.

Related articles:

Reader Interactions

Comments

1) Andrew Freeman

April 5, 2015 at 1:36 pm

Sadly that is the problem these days: people can’t be bothered to learn. The mentality of people today is “I want it now”, and that extends across a broad spectrum, including being able to use a consumer product or even a hobby. My uncle makes steam trains. A youngster asked him how long it takes to make one. When he replied “years” the response was a mixture of shock, disbelief and a sudden waning interest. Humans are getting lazy and getting more dependent on someone, or something else doing something for them, and as a result the human race is dumbing down. It’s a sorry state of affairs. I can’t help but think the animators in Wall-E got it right with the portrayal of the human race in the future.

I agree completely with Andrew Freeman. What Mr Michael Heath seems to forget that, especially the amateur SLR cameras have all a setting for those that do not want to learn in any case and these setting are very clever indeed. I must admit that when I am in a real tearing hurry to get that shot, I use my A+ setting, just to make sure I don’t miss that shot. If time is left and things are not moving that fast as I thought they were going to be I start to experiment with the light etc etc. People very often think they need to buy a very expensive camera to get super results. I see this time and time again in forums regarding new technology. They want this, they want that, and this is rubbish and that is no good and in the meantime I wonder whether they have any idea what photography is all about. Light of day, angle of the light, composition, colour, back ground, you name it. People do not have to learn if they don’t want to. I must admit that this seems to be the the common issue nowadays. No idea how much they are missing, by not wanting to learn and have a perfect winning photo there and then. Good thing, gives us photographers still the edge.

Very true. True craftsmanship, spending time mastering a field and creating functional artwork is on the decline. Of course, it’s hard to blame people for wanting to make their lives easier and save time, but sometimes you lose the pride of hard work. I doubt that many people have experienced what your uncle has after completing a train.

True! People are lazy and will just back off as soon as something is more complicated than one switch for power and another for taking the photo. However, it’s fine. I take photos professionally and I know what all these buttons and dials are for. There cameras are made for people who need them the way they are and this article is kind of silly to my opinion because it says that high end cameras should be made available for everyone and easier to use, which is wrong. For regular people who just enjoy taking photos of their cat or their food, the camera on their phone is more than enough. Besides there are tons of easy to use point n’ click cameras out there. The models listed above are for people that need all these options because they use them. If these are too complicated for you, just buy a simpler model is as easy as that. The only reason why cameras sell less is because now every smart phone as a decent one built in and no one really needs to buy a cheap point n’ click. The writer may have analyzed “professionally” the trends for 15 years, he’s still missing the point…

Nick, I feel you are correct here but that doesn’t diminish the original article. We both make our living with cameras and produce for our clients on a regular basis. We need all the feature rich equipment that enables us to do that. However, we have to consider that most folks just want to be reminded of little Bobby’s 6th birthday and quality of the image is not a consideration. If the parents want a beautiful portrait they will come to us and that’s all good.

I agree, Andrew and Nick; I think it’s pretty obvious that the revolutionary improvement in smartphone cameras is the main reason for the decline in camera sales. The quality of some of the images coming out of recent smartphones (see the above-mentioned Apple gallery: http://www.apple.com/iphone/world-gallery for images that could easily be mistaken for DSLR photos shot by pros). Granted, probably a lot of them were shot by professional photographers, who understand things like lighting, composition, and post-processing. The point is though, when practically everyone has this quality of camera on/with them 24 hours-a-day, what’s the use of lugging around a DSLR (or even a dedicated point-and-shoot)? Interesting article, but I think the writer does slightly miss the point.

Yet they still use their DSLRs and continue to spend thousands on lenses, etc. Why? Because they are far superior in many, many ways. Only simpletons who don’t understand photography would even compare the two.

The more cell phones out there taking pictures, the better it is for the pros.

I agree with you to a degree but I dont understand why Nikon (for example) feels they need 25 models of DSLRs? (NIkons current lineup in Australia straight from their website!) I actually like the idea of a fully auto DSLR where the user just has to focus and zoom (if it is a zoom lens in use). The buttons, knobs and dials are there for the convenience of the user who knows and understands photography, they aren’t needed by anyone else as all that functionality is already in the menu system anyway. I work in a school and have a group of DSLRs that I manage and use. I would love to have a camera that I could setup through the menu for a particular person to use on a particular day for a particular shoot but that had no knobs, dials etc for them to bump or move/change. If they know what they are doing and particularly need to make a setting change they can go into the menu and change it. If they don’t they will zoom, focus and shoot away happily. I also think there is a touch of snobbery (or is it jealousy?) from us who understand cameras and know how to use them and therefore don’t want the lazy masses having access to the same potential quality of imagery that we have. Also the camera on my phone is nowhere near good enough to get photos of my cat eating its food indoors its blurry grainy imagery is of no use at all!

If you did away with the 3xxx series and 5xxx series and replaced them with a camera with no buttons, dials knobs other than shutter on/off but had all the current functionality in the menus I think you would have a great camera that could be made cheaper and would be much more appealing to beginners could be really saleable and may help bridge users to more capable products in the future.

Michael, interesting request. When I first had to make the switch from film to digital, (I was working with F4’s at the time), I thought I would be able to go into a camera store and just buy a digital camera set up like my F4. Just no such thing at the time. I think the Nikon DF comes the closet to that but not really. Why can’t Nikon just make a cameras that works like the film cameras? I guess the added features are a benefit.

There is some truth to that but … life has greater complexity. We are OVERWHELMED and not just cameras but everything. Years ago, you did not dial a phone number! You picked up the phone and asked the operator to connect to the pharmacy on main street. There were patty lines where one line served and entire neighborhood. It is not that people are lazy or that they don’t want to learn. It is that there is so much and it is too much. Years ago there was no internet. Today we can access everything and it would be impossible to read it all or do it all. And yet, we are pressured to do it all. Years ago, I could see one doctor. Today I have a doctor for every body part. The specialization is incredible. Take one and he doesn’t know much but the sum of all doctors is smarter than one doctor alone. I disagree that we are dumbing anyone. We are smarter than we have ever been and the complexities of our cameras reflect that. It is a matter of choice and where you want to spend your precious time. If you complain that there is too much to do and not enough time to do it is the underlying argument of the article.

Xrulan’s post is spot on and mirrors my thoughts. I grow very tired of people making broad generalizations about today’s “state of affairs” saying that people are lazier than ever. The human race has never been smarter or more accomplished than it is today. High school students regularly take classes like calculus and AP physics these days as almost standard courses. They also participate in numerous extra curricular activities because getting into college is more competitive than ever all the while managing their social lives that are now connected 24/7. Previous generations never had to deal with so many different draws of their time and attention. Scientists also continue to break down new barriers and businesses are creating products never before dreamed. We’re not becoming lazier because I would argue that most of us are busier than ever. Certainly the human race has found simpler ways to do things that were once complex, but that doesn’t mean we’re lazy. The time that has been freed up by those “lazy advancements” has simply been replaced with other activities that demand that we multi-task and engage our brains virtually non-stop every day. Now you could argue that you believe that people should stop multi-tasking and spend more time on slower hobbies, like building steam trains or shooting with film, but that should be a choice of the user (and it still is!). I bet every generation has complained about the “laziness” of the proceeding generation since civilization started developing technology, but every generation has out-produced and out-advanced the previous generation despite their “laziness”. You may not like that the world changes, but it’s a fact of life and change will never stop.

I wish that were true. If someone is intelligent enough to tackle calculus and physics, they are also intelligent enough to tackle photography. Yet is often intelligent, qualified people who complain that their newly acquired camera has too many buttons, dials and menus and that it is too ‘complicated’. That’s what I mean by lazy.

My point was that it’s not about intelligence or laziness. It’s about the things that compete for people’s time. There’s just so much more of it now than ever before. If people aren’t willing to take the time to learn photography, my contention is that it’s not because they are lazy, it’s because they have other things competing for their attention and they would prefer to use their time for those things instead. If they can get decent photos that please them with less effort due to a simplified camera that frees themselves up to do other things with their limited time, then I don’t see the point in complaining about how “lazy” they may appear to “real” photographers.

What makes me cross is that these busy people, with no time to learn how to use a proper camera, go out and buy themselves a D800 (well they have to show their friends that they are affluent, successful and great photographers) and then complain that their shiny new status symbol is too complicated and has too many buttons. I would still call that lazy. It’s not the cameras fault that its owner can’t or won’t take the time to learn how to use it. And if they don’t have the time, there are a million and one ‘simplified cameras’ on the market called ‘point and shoot’ or ‘camera phone’. With a nice quality point and shoot they CAN get ‘decent photos’ and need not be deflected from the other things that compete for their time. I just wish they would stop whingeing about lack of choice (!) and how difficult it all is.

I think this argument is not about technology or laziness, but about purpose and intent. We today have a clear differentiation between images taken as a record versus images taken as an art form. If we consider a painter as an artist, we have to accept to learn the tools that will shape the artwork. But it has not always been that way, before photography painting was the only way to record an image. Next step was to use photography as record taking, then it also became a creative media. The latter is debated often today, whether machine vision can in fact ever be an art form. If you are part of the the group that thinks of photography being a method of recording, then yes a machine can help you. If you believe that choices of lenses, choices in a approach and post processing make a difference, then you come inevitably to the conclusion that the personal style of a photographer does make a significant difference. I would argue that learning even most complicated camera is a far cry from the experience needed to create an image, not to take one. Yes I do use my smart phone that offers nothing but auto everything on occasions, but other than slight compositional variations I cannot do anything to separate my photo from someone else being at the same place at the same time using the same technology. Yes I agree, there are great smart phone photos around, the shear number of images taken will evidently provide unique flukes. An photographer versus a picture taker will apply the tools to achieve consistently a superior result in whatever the conditions, but creativity is limited the flexibility of the tools. Until we can affect camera settings by just thinking, we need dials, touch screens or settings. I strongly disagree that a robot-camera alone can emulate the range of talents photographers bring into an image, but I agree machines can apply fashionable effects somebody else has programmed for the masses. The “complicated camera” market will reduce, because record keeping requirements like selfies is fulfilled by smart phones, convenience triumphs, and you don’t even have to interact with strangers that possible could achieve a better image than holding out a camera at arm’s length (how sad). OK, lets do a wedding where we set up several cameras on robots on auto shooting a frame every second, plus auto smile detect, should cover it. I do agree so, that “film camera emulators” are also not it and the smart needs to be added to also the camera just as it was added to the phone to provide greater flexibility. There are open source firmware overlays for (some) cameras that clearly demonstrate what can really be done with the hardware, but was not implemented by the camera manufacturer by strategic intent or lack of vision.

It’s about the photo, not the gear. The attention needs to be how to get the right lighting, composition and focus. I personally yearn for a camera with a match needle in the viewfinder, ISO and shutter speed dials, and lenses with focus and aperture rings.

Any pro or advanced amateur knows what to do with these simple controls. Snap shooters just need a smart camera with an on/off switch and huge gobs of firmware, and that’s pretty much available today.

It isn’t a new problem, and it isn’t just “people these days”. When I got my first film SLR, I was so scared of all the dials and buttons that I stuffed it in the back of my closet for several months before I worked up the nerve to try and learn how to operate it.

Later I took it on a day trip with some relatives, and they laughed at my crazy camera. Why would I have such an expensive and complicated thing? After the photos came back from the lab they were shocked — shocked! — to see that the prints did, in fact, look better than photos snapped with a 110 pocket camera.

Val, with the world population reaching 7 billion, strong smartphone market growth and more people taking pictures, I think we can safely assume that there is little correlation between market saturation and camera sales. We see more new markets with strong purchasing power and yet less people are buying than before. Why is that?

In my opinion, the camera sales are down to the following factors: 1) Complexity – I agree with the author on this one. Cheaper / lower-end cameras should be easier to use. 2) Smartphones – while many claim that the smartphone industry is not to blame for the market shrinkage, I believe that most people feel that their phones are capable enough in producing good photos. They just hate the idea of carrying another tool with them, especially if it is going to be bulky and heavy. 3) Over-saturation of choice – too many damn cameras! Too many announcements just to sell a new “fresh” camera. How many Nikon D3xxx, D5xxx, D7xxx, Dxx and Canon Digital Rebels does a potential buyer have to go through before buying a camera? Thanks to mirrorless offers, you now have a boatload more. And that’s not even counting lenses and accessories. This is way too overwhelming for potential buyers. 4) High Cost – mirrorless is supposed to be cheaper thanks to having less components. And yet somehow they are often more expensive than their DSLR counterparts. I don’t understand why Nikon does not want to get that their Nikon 1 series cameras are never going to be bought for $1K+ prices. That’s just idiotic to make that assumption. Nikon waits a year or two, then decides to get rid of the existing stock by undercutting the price by over 50%. That’s just insane. Why not come up with a pricing strategy that will appeal to the masses at launch? Make the camera affordable for what it can do. I should not think that I should be looking at a small camera with a 1″ sensor for a much higher price than a DSLR with a much larger sensor. And Nikon is just an example – every camera on the market today is priced similarly. 5) New Markets – taking into account the point #4 above, manufacturers need to stop thinking about selling to existing photographers. Want to expand the market? Reach for the masses. Stop making retro-looking cameras for the sake of creating emotion with old timers. Make cameras fun to use, easy to use and market to those who don’t own them. That’s what Apple did and you know the story.

I believe that your point #2 (smartphone) is the answer. Everybody has a smartphone and every smartphone comes with a camera. For many people that is enough. They would not buy a dedicated camera regardless of how easy it were to use.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true, and I think the camera manufacturers could be assertive and creative enough to prove that there are advantages to a dedicated camera. (The operative term being ‘could be’.) I had owned smartphones with very capable cameras for years before I picked up my first mirrorless camera, a slightly-used Olympus E-P2. The colleagues I mention in the article are mostly IT folk who own a smartphone, and they go ahead and use DSLRs and mirrorless cameras regardless. If camera manufacturers want to expand again, rather than just regress to serving a much smaller core market of enthusiasts and professionals (a much smaller and more cutthroat market, at that), they need to meet average consumers somewhere between the smartphone and the pro/pro-am market.

I think it’s unrealistic, most people don’t care *enough* to go for a camera that isn’t included in the smartphone that they *already* have in their pocket, for them, image quality as a concern is behind : – social sharing features – overall ease of use – overall bulk

“Social sharing” have been *defined* by smartphones lately, unless camera makers rethink their *whole* system to handle third party apps the way smartphone do, they can’t even compete, and certainly would never win. “Bulk” is a net *zero* for smartphones since almost everybody have one, they obviously win by a huge margin here. “Ease of use” is the only ground where camera makers could somewhat compete.. they already do a pretty good job with their “full auto” modes, which are put in evidence on all consumer-grade cameras, I’m not sure you can do much more than “full automatic” apart from scrapping all the other options that could be distracting to a newcomer (which is what smartphones already do “out of necessity”). They would probably need to open their system to third parties for them to develop app variations that they couldn’t cover themselves, unlikely competition again.

Only net gain on the side of camera makers is image quality/image production flexibility.. image quality is already addressed by better optical and sensor elements as well as more integrated OS and more refined image processing pipes. Flexibility is already addressed by a boatload of parameters partially commanded by various external knobs and buttons.

The problem is that these two points don’t really overlap with the average customer’s concerns, and moreover, they can be mutually exclusive with them at some point (good lenses get large, good sensors tend to be larger too, they get quite pricey too, “flexibility” tends to be mutually exclusive with “ease of use” ; see Apple and how they deal with complexity : they scrap it, fuck you power-users).

“It’s not due to the rise of phones with cameras – at least, not in the way you think”, the problem is that what you describe after this, is what smartphones already are.

People want the most instantaneous experience in taking photos and sharing them, an iPhone 6 can already take very good photos and does a fair bit of PP all by himself, from HDR mode to the “magic wand PP” button and popular filters. And what device is closer to people today than their smartphone ? I’d wager that the answer is “none” and there’s nothing camera makers can do to change that. At best, it would most probably lead to clunky frankenstein-ish devices like Samsung’s own attempts. I believe their is a lot of room for improvement, but it’s very unlikely it will change the current state of affairs. Smartphones will become even better and better at taking pictures, while still offering a whole world of other usages that a dedicated camera isn’t supposed to provide.

Anything that can be done to improve dedicated camera’s ease of use can also be applied or dramatically offset on smartphones’ side. A revolution for dedicated cameras would certainly gain new customers for a time, or eventually reach/create new niches, but it probably wouldn’t change much in the long term.

Nasim, you know well that the Leica X2 is a simple to use camera. the problem is that it costs 2000 dollars plus another 500. why someone cannot make that kind of camera for 400 bucks – well they could. fuji could do easily without detracting from their niche market.

Nasim, on the matter of people believing “their phones are capable enough in producing good photos”, you got it. I am a section editor at a big newspaper where reporters now routinely file pictures taken with their iPhones and these are good enough. OK, so we make a few allowances for newsprint which is not the best medium for displaying photography, but still, the trend is clear and, imho, unstoppable.

The iPhone did affect the camera. Just check out google trends on the keywords 1) iPhone 4s 2) DSLR

The graph is stunningly shocking :( And Camera+’s founder did a side by side comparison of photos with different generations of iPhone. For the iPhone 4s, the jump in image performance was very evident

I don’t think I’ve ever read a more Orwellian post. The economy is great! Cell phones have nothing to do with it! There are no mirrorless cameras that are easy to use! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! I think this fellow is a great argument against ever attending a University.

there are easy to use mirrorsless cameras. the leica x2 is so simple it is stupid simple. the problem is – it cost over 2000 dollars to buy and then you have to add a 500 dollar gizmo to see through it. so who is going to use that camera – well not many. but it goes to show you this can be done. none of the mirrors guys are doing that today. fuji could do it but they are focused on their niche market (i use them) i also use about 1/100 of the bells and whistles. so the argument this guy makes is very valid.

First, I love Orwell, but I’d hazard a guess that he’d be more worried that we’re communicating with each other using computers and the internet than talking face-to-face because it allows us to behave however we like with little repercussion. Secondly, the global economy is in constant flux. Japan’s market has been contracting, the American market is barely stabilizing (Dow Jones, up; wages, still stagnant, unless you were already a millionaire), and the Eurozone is a mess (Greece could take out the Euro, or not… we’re not quite sure yet).

The point is that there’s no correlation between ‘bad economy’ and ‘bad camera sales’. No economist would believe it, no statistical analyst would believe it, and I don’t think anybody should believe a camera executive or quarterly sales report that says it.

It also has to do with diminishing returns, just like what happened to PC’s a few years ago with hardware development firms going under. Today’s cameras are so good at what they were intended for, that many people no longer find it necessary to ‘upgrade’ every six months or so.

I think there is a lot of truth in your view. But photography have so many aspects, from people taking casual pics during everyday life with their mobile phones to the true artists that create pictures for art, media and special events. DSLR have also become very expensive, mirrorless systems are smaller and to some extend more user friendly but the info show sales in both are going down. For me, I love the feel and the process of using a DSLR, I come from film days, so the camera for me is part of the process. So I am old school, I have an iPhone and often use the camera for snapshots, but I have tried mirrorless and still don’t catch onto the hype.

Hello, I’m sorry to come so late to this wonderful chat. I think this is particular issue is a part of a big game, but I still do not know the name to this game. Please, let me give you some examples:

Sometimes I hear “this camera makes beautiful pictures”. And I always answer the same: “This is a nice tool, but the picture (the original idea) is in my brain and it’s seen by my eyes. My camera is only a tool to freeze and save my idea. But I take the pictures.

As far as I know better how to use my camera, my “idea” (my picture) will be better described.

No screwdriver takes the screws out by itself, you are the one how takes out the screws, and if you know very well how to use it, the screws will be out (or in) in a better way.

In the air pilots world (I’m a member) you can hear something similar. “This aircraft “flyes” very well”. And my answer is the same: This aircraft is very well designed, but I FLY the aircratf. And if I study and learn my aircraft perfectly I will fly nice, smooth and safe.

We should try not to give more prominence to machines that they already have,

We are coming to a world that is starting to think that computerized devices can do OUR JOB, or our hobbies, and that we only have to “point and shoot”.

A lot of compact cameras don’t even carry inside of it’s buying box the printed manual, because camera manufactorers have realized, that most people never read the manual. If you want to read it, please download it and print it.

Most people don’t know how to use its camera, and don’t even understand the basics of photography, like exposition, speed, ISO… They just want the camera to do everithing without even knowing the basic concepts of how to deal with the light.

Something is changing in this planet.

I think we still have time to correct our heading. Otherwise, we’ll finally have to fight against the machines. (I’ll be back! by A.S.)

On last november a Lufthansa Airbus A321 have a major incident flying from Bilbao (Spain) to Germany while climbing to cruise altitude. Two of the three stall sensors have a false indication that the aircraft was stalling, so the flight controls started to pitch down to recover from the false stall. They’ve lost more than 4.000 feet.

They were lucky because they already have reached high altitude, and have a margin to recover, otherwise they would be killed.

Of course they have disconnected autopilot and gone to manual mode (called “normal law”), but the flight control system of this machine is so “clever” that was still pitching down, without obeying pilot’s pitch up commands. So the pilots had finally disconnected some Air Data Computers (ADR) to recover from the pitch down situation.

Once they hade one ADR off, the aircraft went to what they call “alternate law” and they could fly the aircraft in “real manual”, just like in the old times.

We seem to forget that the two cameras above the Nikon and Fuji are going are going back to the simpler days it just back then we learned what to do with the dials. We didn’t have auto back then, if people are intimidated by the dials and don’t want to learn, all they have to do is put it on auto and shoot away.

Except those that have never used those cameras would feel intimidated by looking at the many dials and functions. Similar to how a person entering a plane cockpit is intimidated by seeing too many controls – our brain throws us into a panic mode automatically.

Don’t agree with the article. It’s the saturation of existing cameras/lenses which causes less and less sales every year. The new cameras are just faster, have some tech magic (wifi, gps) , and have more megapixels. None of these will make me change my EM5 or D7000 or Nex7 or D5100 or 650D. The new users expect faster and easier connection to internet. Instead, what companies give us is cluttered interfaces and several-steps to upload my images to internet.

I agree with your comment on bringing out too many damn cameras and lenses. But disagree that it is the saturation that causes camera sales to go down – that’s only true if manufacturers are only selling to existing customers. In any market, the goal of the manufacturer is to expand the reach, which is clearly not what the manufacturers are doing. With the world reaching 7 billion people, there is a huge market potential for any product, as long as it is done right.

Market expansion normally takes you into the less well off segment as, with a camera being a luxury item, the wealthier citizens of the planet will already have one. Given this expansion into the more frontier market segment and their more limited spending power, what do you think they would choose: smartphone or DSLR, given they can likely afford only one. Outside of market expansion you are selling to existing owners. In this regard smartphones have a much shorter lifespan than a DSLR, hence that is where the money heads. I still have my bought near release date EOS 20D and EOS 5D MKII, the latter of which is nearly 7 years old, and the only reason I am drawn towards an update is to swap to a lighter mirrorless system once I feel the market offers a suitable replacement. My RX100 covers all other situations as phones are rubbish for anything but small sized reproductions taken in perfect lighting – view them on a monitor not even 100% and they look rubbish.

Sorry to say but this is a crappy article.. Sales are down due to fact that that the camera market is saturated with most ppl already having a camera.. Sure, price plays a role but all the options (ISO, EV, Aperture, SS, WB etc) need to be there and have to be set as required to take a particular ‘type’ of photograph. Mobile Cameras cannot be compared with DSLRs in any aspect.. One is a Bicycle and second one is a F1 Sports Car.. You can sure ‘race’ on both of them, but the speed in both depends on the features and complexity..

DS, if you disagree with the author the article must be crappy? Come on, that’s just being childish. I disagree with market saturation comment – that’s only true if you are selling to the existing customer base. See my response to Val below.

I think your bicycle/car analogy is apt, in a way: A smartphone is a bicycle, and a pro DSLR is an F1 sports car. Many people own a bicycle, and it works perfectly fine for them, getting them from place to place. People even enjoy riding their bicycles. Hardly anyone owns, or could make use of, an F1 sports car, because it’s expensive, unwieldy, has a narrow usage model to exploit its advantages, and requires a certain amount of chutzpah to properly command.

Many people have a smartphone, and it works perfectly fine at capturing images. People even enjoy using their smartphones for taking pictures. A much narrower population has a DSLR because their expensive, unwieldy, has a narrow usage model to exploit its advantages, and only a tiny sub-population of that population has the chutzpah to make good use of their DSLR.

In a way it is also dependent upon the output format. Plenty of people will only view their photos on their phone or tablet and, surprise surprise, the quality of photos taken by such devices perfectly suits that. If you want a large wall canvas or quality print then chance are you need a better camera to take the photo. Every photo I’ve ever taken on a phone or tablet looks great viewed on them – on a 27″ monitor, not so much.

There are multiple trends that IMHO are impacting the huge decrease 1) Good enough: for many the instantly available and shareable iPhone and other smartphone is good enough and there. It is only when it truely fails to meet your image capture needs does the consumer go looking for something else. 5 years ago everyone would have a P&S and maybe a DSLR for better IQ or quality. Today between iPhone / Smatphone for video and snapshots how big a niche does the DSLR or mirrorless offer 2) Value: For the dollars a DSLR and or mirrorless must overcome the $, size, and as you noted the complexity to get more sales 1) truely increases the barrier for 2) And these days increasing pixels, FPS, DR etc.etc really is a harder sell then every before. I’m a gearhead and the last round of upgrades are very uncompelling. 4 / 5 of my family used to still bring a P&S or even consider a DSLR but find the iPhone good enough. ON my last vacation even I found myself leaving my DSLR at home and taking my V1 and still 40-50% of my pictures were from the iPhone. Add a zoom lense to the iPhone and 90% of my pictures will be iPhone based with only the most extreme action / lowlight for DSLR and I don’t every need to upgrade again.. good enough. The problem for Canikon and others it takes serious $ to move the industry forward, but they don’t have volumes to do it on either the hardware or software, while Apple and others have huge volumes to move the photography of the smartphone forward with each new generation with better hardware/software and hopefully add on lenses too :D Moore’s law has moved the camera industry forward, but like the PC industry changes are required, big ones to keep growth!

I agree about cost. Mirrorless and DSLR cameras should be a lot cheaper than they are. I feel the expansion of model numbers down the chain is done so in order to keep the price levels inflated. I think my RX100 is an amazing camera but I find it hard to justify how the MK4 model can justify a price around or over $1000.

I disagree with this article. Every camera has the ability to shoot very simple and off you go, you’ve got a snapshot camera. The Nikon Df is a camera that should not be in this article. It is designed for people who know how to use a camera and understand the principles of shooting. It’s also a $3000 camera. It’s production is low and Nikon is not making this camera for the masses.

I believe camera sales are down because cameras in general on all levels are very very good today. It’s hard to get rid of your camera for something that is a little better, not a lot better. Mobile photography has definitely decimated the camera sales industry. It’s easy (as you’ve mentioned in your article), it’s with you all the time! My dslr is not. Your best camera is the one with you. One thing to note, camera phones can be just as complicated as a dslr. The photo apps can and do have just as much of a learning curve than a dslr.

I get that you’re not a photographer, but maybe you should be if your going to write an article about it.

One last thing about the Nikon Df…with as many dials as it has, it is actually the easiest camera to use. You can shoot in full control without once having to go into a menu. Again, you have to know a bit about taking a pic to realize this.

I agree regarding your comment that cameras are very good today and no need to upgrade so quickly. from the D100 to D200 to D300 there was a significant jump. the D7100 to D7200 isnt much. from the D800 to D810 isnt much also. just like with computers. its gotten to the point that performance jump isnt such a huge benefit. I remember going from 1GB ram to 3GB in XP was a sinificant increase. even a middle level i5 and Gtx 660 with a cheap motherboard and 8gb 1033 ram and an SSD will be blistering fast for almost most peoples needs.

I disagree completely regarding the DF. im not sure its made for those who know how to use a camera dont have an opinion regarding that, but I do know its overpriced and underspeced. the teaser videos got people so excited till they announced the price tag and then everything went limp and it was a fail immediately. I was going to buy 2 for weddings and sell my D3/ D3s for them. but no video? what the hell were they thinking. its a huge fail on their part.just like no aperture control in live view in video equipped cameras. this is just 101 basics. cheapening out on features that would help them help themselves.

tons have left nikon to canon sony panasonic for video in weddings. theyre not even in the run in. so leaving out video was a huge mistake. putting in a crap AF system that cant focus in low light when the damn camera was made to shoot in low light. like a ferrari 568 with shitty ford fiesta brakes. they crippled the camera and they shot themselves in the foot. meh, no worries, I guess it was supposed to happen so I can get a D750 for its stellar video.

theyre in the shits nikon and I dont see them coming out anytime soon.lowest stock in almost 4 years. qurterly revenue after revenue thats bearish. reputation thats tarnished.dont know what the future holds for nikon.

I had the D100, 200 and 300 and now the Df (which I love). I don’t shoot video, or weddings, but know several very good wedding photographers who love the Df. I understand your anger towards Nikon and agree in many ways. I don’t know if you’ve ever used the camera, but it truly is a lot of fun to shoot with. It brings fun back ingot the workday of shooting. The images are seriously beautiful, excellent dynamic range, etc. I personally love it. Yes, I wish it had a few certain things, but every camera I know has a wish list of things to them.

Anyway, this wasn’t about how awesome/not awesome the Df is, it’s about the author using the Df in the argument of manufactures putting cameras out in the market of declining sales. My point is that the Df at the price that it is and the manufacturing quantities they have is intended to address certain niche photographers, not contribute to lack of camera sales as a whole.

I think now’s a good time to mention that I’ve used a Df a number of times, and I’m generally impartial to it. The guts are all fine and good, but the controls don’t lend themselves well to some types of photographic situations I find myself in – outdoor wildlife being one of them.

Michael, I was not directing my comment at you, as from what I understand you weren’t really bashing the camera, but rather pointing out the complexities of the design and its negative appeal towards the general public – which I agree with. The Df was never a product for the masses, it was created as a niche to appeal to a specific group of people, which I believe Nikon did a fairly good job with. But would it be the tool to use for everyone out there? Of course not – most people would find the camera to be a bit backwards, or it would not fit their style. Bob Vishneski did a series of articles making fun of Df and I wrote a number of replies right here at PL to balance things out a bit. We obviously differ in our opinion regarding the camera, but we are still very respectful of our differences – and that’s what it is all about, wouldn’t you agree?

they were looking to sell a ton of them. I think they designed this to get people super excited and they wanted to take advantage of it by selling it for such a high price. here again, they were greedy. not giving people what they wanted. shitty af system and no video. look at the D750. they finally lowered their heads and packed tons of features into it. its a jack of all trades camera. MP/fps/af/high iso/features. it has it all for a good price. because of some stupid dials I should fork out so much money and get less back?

all the effort they put into making a new design/shape with the D4 sensor costed a lot and they wanted to get their money back. they fell smack down on their face with it. I held it a little and it was fine. I only saw it as a tool for my wedding work. nothing else. the design/feel/style is meh for me. I simply wanted a tool with video and stills and imo they failed here.

we can discuss how you and I thought nikon wanted this to succeed but in my eyes this was a fail. they underspeced it and ramped up the price and people just got turned off. no way in hell you invest in tons of teaser video (which costs money and time) into this and dont expect it to sell like crazy. you dont build up so much tension over such a long time and expect to sell a few for a “niche” market. bs. they wanted to sell tons. people saw the price tag, saw the underspeced camera and were turned off immedietely. fuji is on a roll with their retro style cameras and they wanted to get on the flow. they screwed up big. many wanted to buy it. the price tag was not the issue because I think many would have bought it. but underspecing it was what drove people away. they wanted to sell it in masses.

there is no nikon camera they make they dont want to sell in masses. they dont make niche. they make mass production runs and RD costs a lot and they need to move a lot. their financial situation is in the shits and they wanted this to bring them attention and praise and shine a light on their dreary bad media attention theyve been having. they screwed up.many have said so.

I totally agree with your comment and disagree with the article as well. The DF was never designed for people who really want a ‘point and shoot type camera’. Nikon designed this camera as a ‘niche’ product for guys like me that have been using cameras for more than thirty years. Sales of point and shoot cameras are also on a decline, yet they tarket exactly people who don’t want to learn the basics in photography (as mentioned in the article). Sort of destroys the argument that camera manufacturers should be making simpler cameras. They have, and it hasn’t worked. Something else is a work here and I would guess that it’s dictated by the needs of social media sharing and smart phones.

The fact that you state the Df was “never designed for people who really want a ‘point and shoot type camera'” just plays into my point that camera companies have decided that camera nerds and pro-togs are somehow going to boost them back into profitability. They won’t. There are not enough pros and enthusiasts in the world to make the big camera companies profitable again. I’ve used a number of point & shoot cameras. They’re still, in essence, evolutions of film cameras. They’re dumb, unintelligible things that can only produce decent results if you deal with their frustratingly limited controls under the most optimal conditions.

My point is that camera companies did cater to the ‘point and shoot’ crowd with simple and tiny cameras. These cameras are no longer selling very well. Making simpler cameras will not help, as they have done this already. As for catering to the pros and enthusiasts, camera companies probably know that this will not totally solve the problem with declining sales. We can expect that newer models will be introduced at a slower pace.

Interesting, I did not know that. Using a D3 and D750 I was thinking about selling my D300 and buy a small point-and-shoot for traveling and so. I guess I should keep it as my point and shoot instead….

Allan, I own a Nikon Df and love it. People that don’t get it can just move on, as it has an appeal for me. Not because of the looks, but because of the stunning images it is capable of producing. I also love the fact that I can mount any lens on it – I have a couple of non-converted Nikkors that I can use on the Df. Makes me wonder why Nikon does not do this on all modern DSLRs!

And yes, the Df is a niche product that was created for folks like me that appreciate it. It was never supposed to be a mass market product. I believe Michael was giving an example of what the modern generation calls “clutter” when he showed the Df – certainly not relevant to the youth, but very relevant to many others…

I started shooting professionally just when the D100 came out, so I’m a digital guy. The Df, for me somehow for some reason brings fun back into shooting. Can’t explain it, maybe because of how it looks, the sound of the shutter, the size, etc., but at the end of the day, if you have a camera that produces truly stunning images, easy to use, and add on some emotion, then you have a tool you’re using a lot more. This is the first camera I’ve owned where I shoot professionally and have the desire to bring out for street shooting as well. I would’ve never brought out my D300 walking the streets of SF, Paris, etc. I’d rather use my iPhone (which I have sold images to Starbucks, and Flora Springs Winery). Also, because of this camera I’ve seriously had the desire to explore manual focus shooting. It’s been two months, and I’m starting to prefer it. Yes, it;s harder for me, but soooooo much fun. I feel like I’m creating the image rather than just taking it. This is due entirely because of the camera.

It’s funny, in the last 6-9 months, I’ve seen more and more pro photographers drawn to the Df. As time marches on and people calm down a bit about their opinion of this camera, they’re realizing what a hidden gem this camera truly is. One thing to note about the auto focus regarding this camera, I think there are models out there that are better than others. My model in particular has no problem what so ever shooting in low light. It’s amazing.

Thank you Nasim for replying to my earlier comments. I enjoy this website very much.

Allan, I’ve used the Nikon Df on a few occasions. I neither like it or dislike it, if I’m being perfectly honest. I used the Df and the X-T1 as examples of completely unapproachable cameras to anyone not already well-versed in the finer nuances of photography (and even those who are have sometimes had a tendency to shun cameras like the Df and the X-T1). I also am quite aware that people can and do overly complicate the cameras on their phones if they so choose, but, again, I contend these people are in a vast minority.

If you read the article, you’d also realize that I *am* a photographer, just not one who is paid for taking/making/capturing pictures. I’ve learned to withhold my opinions about concepts and products where I have no practical fluency.

I think the article failed to convince me that the down hill sale of DSLR’s is because of the complexity of modern cameras. This conclusion is based on life experience, probably already biased by personal opinion. There’s no survey, not data to support it. Me myself love complex things, so do many of my friends. We love the control over every detail. The author seems to be an IT product analyst, who I believe is trained to simplify products, which is the philosophy of IT products. As a programmer, I also tend to design simple products for other to use, but myself prefer to have complex things and feel the ability of controlling.

Well I think it’s quite linked with the quality of the phones improving. I see a lot of people with dslr but use it as a point and shoot. Then you have mirrorless cameras, feel quite tempted to get one but it’s not that cheap. I think that in order to buy new cameras from the likes of a Sony or fuji it may mean selling all the Nikon or canon equipment. For most people they are happy enough with a mobile phone and Instagram. The apps have played a role in this as well. It’s easy to transform a ‘bad’ photo into more arty type. The main brands just need to listen to the consumer trends. For instance I’m speechless that the Canon m3 doesn’t have a viewfinder, so I’ll keep my dslr until I see where the new trends will go. I will not buy a new camera for minor updates and I guess a lot of people also feel the same

Many that years ago would have purchased the most basic of camera to record ‘snaps’ and casual daily lives just use their phones and it probably never even crosses their mind to purchase a dedicated camera, which they would never need above the camera in the phone anyway.

I think the article is a very good one. I also think Andrew Freeman’s comment regarding the learning process is to the point. One other factor I think has not been covered here is the “digital world”. Most folks, whether using a DSLR, or point and shoot, or cell phone, are making pictures for the digital world of FaceBook and other sites and prints are not required. I also see here, many, very good photographers who post to a website, either their own or a rented space, only make images for that purpose. In my family room I have three gallery walls filled to capacity with prints; and they are changed often. I’m used to prints not digital images. This modern generation wants digital. Heck, they don’t even talk to one another on the phone but text back and forth. Michael Heath, I think you may have hit a homerun with your assessment.

Bingo – well thought out and written. I like the tech part of photography, but I’m not the majority of people as are most of the people reading this article.

Take the iPad (or tablet), who needs it? You have a computer and you have a smartphone. But Apple figured out there was a need for this type of product – better than an iPhone for many jobs but simpler than a computer. And they delivered a competent very easy to use ‘computer’. My mother-in-law who is 90 loves her iPad, and she never used a computer. She upgraded from pen and paper, and for her it was a great investment.

It seems a crime to dumb down a 24 MP sensor, but if it helps people make better photos, who cares. How many people understand the development of a child in utero, or even the true process of conception, but are happy to make babies? Make it easy for people, and make the outcomes better, and you will attract a new population.

We ‘techy’ people are a limited group, and yes we perhaps have enough cameras. But if you want more sales you need to expand your target population. That’s perhaps why the big consumable companies look to India and China to develop a market for their soda water and chocolates. Europe and the USA may be saturated. And in the same vein where is Christianity adding the most converts, the countries where it started?

What’s seems to be forgotten is that every one of those complex cameras has an Auto-everything mode that takes wonderful pictures as simply as any camera ever has and with much better image quality than ever before. The enthusiast wonders why camera manufactures bother with those modes since they don’t use them but the newbie doesn’t even know they exist or how good they are because the camera company’s don’t market that feature. I think you are also neglecting the fact that most of the cameras you mention have simpler, lower priced versions.

I think you are right about price though. Considering that many of the new mirrorless cameras have almost no moving parts they seem stupidly expensive compared to DSLRs, often with larger sensors.

I think we’re all dancing around the answer ( complexity, cost, saturation ). But I do think complexity is narrowing in on it – we’re become accustomed to phone camera simplicity. And the phone camera engineers get it right – your phone defaults to auto-iso out of the box! I’ve replied to numerous threads where a new DSLR user complains about a photo being out of focus, where they’re taking a 1/10″ exposure at 100mm in auto-mode. Even the “sports” mode seems to clamp ISO to a low-ceiling. I know I’m harping on this, but manufacturers would do well to set auto-ISO on out of the box with as high a ceiling as their ISO allows. Customers who understand the camera ( or want to understand ) can turn it off or adjust. It isn’t working the other-way-around.

If those cameras are too complicated to use then dont use them. There are plenty of point and shoot cameras for the rest. I want those dedicated camera to be sufficientely and necessarily “complicated” for me to utilize my medium and creativity.

Two points: (1) I believe the author meant COBOL rather than Cobalt; (2) It is the nature of innovation to add layer upon layer of technology to reach new levels of functionality — and good products hide the underlying complexity — like this iPad I’m using to make this comment. That said, perhaps camera manufacturers could win over some camera phone users by providing models that hide all but essentials of making a good photograph, the digital equivalent of some of the beloved film cameras of the past.

I think the article might be correct for the family of the author, and reading the article,i can somehow sense a photography background on this family which is why they are going through the dilemma of choices, because they want things simple, but doesnt want sub par quality. Ive shot events before, and now im ready to let go of my dslr because i dont shoot for money anymore. But will be getting a camera that has no VF? No, because i need that. If this was a family whose end goal was to take photos and share it socially, i doubt that they will have problems with using PS or the auto mode on thier cameras. While some of the points on this article might be true, i think it is a little bias towards tje immediate circle of the author.

The central thesis of this article is severely undercut by the fact that pretty nearly every camera has a built-in “simple mode” if that is needed. It’s Program or Aperture Priority. The user may also choose to have Auto ISO switched on. One small piece of paper in the box with a title like : “How to Shoot in Really Simple Mode Right Now” will do wonders for the first-time serious camera user. AND the camera will of course have all the bells and whistles for when the user “grows up with the camera.” No cell phone camera can equal those results.

This is a very interesting point to discuss. As a person who has owned a camera since late 60’s I have seen a tremendous evolution especially since the impact of digital technology in photography. My take on this issue.

– I don’t think a camera is “complicated”, sure you’ve got to be familiar with the basics but with digital it make the process of producing good images easier than it was before. As most people in the world today have access to a computer they can incorporate their image processing along other things they can do on the same machine. Before you need a dark room to process your images, you had to be more “involved” and doing only one thing.

– Change of mentality of the new generations. With digital, most people expect everything to be done for them easily. They can be bothered learning properly an old process, they want snapshots, memories, they don’t want to learn to do this, they are not going to read Ansel Adams, most pictures are going to stay on the computer and will NEVER get printed but shared on social network… that alone could justify the success of phone imaging.

– It is incredible the number of people with expensive equipment who are always using “P” mode and really only expect a better snapshot rather than a nice well composed timeless photograph. Most of the time those people don’t understand their equipment, don’t really appreciate the results produced by that expensive camera and go back to simpler image capturing devices such as the mobile phone. Really thy did not need that equipment at first place, the expensive camera stays in the closet.

– Today with one machine, the computer you can do music, photography… all sorts of things. The tools are there given to you, it’s part of the process of having a computer. Why would you need an expensive camera when you can with a few clicks post easily post process a picture without spending too much time on it.

– Why would you carry a camera when the technology on the mobile phones is improving everyday, especially if you do not have any special interest in photography and only want snapshots?

– Market saturation: I think there is too much variation of the same thing without any real improvement. See Nikon with their camera lineup for instance. Every model has a little bit more processing but the result is the same, any substantial image quality difference between a D7100/D7200…? D3/D4s…? I have plenty of examples like that. The result is the same but manufacturers want you to believe differently.

Anyway, I could go on with this for a long time. As far as I am concerned I have been stuck with SLR, not because I belong to an “older” generation but I think it’s suit my photography better, I tried Medium format/rangefinders (Real ones), mirror less… All this is purely personal and I can understand the diversity of opinions on that subject.

I have seen lots of pictures shot by regular people that even if the exposure, sharpening, saturation, dynamic range, etc were just perfect (all of that achieved automatically) their photos would still suck, the composition was just wrong, and that is something I don’t know if any camera manufacturer will ever be able to make.

They can leave suggestions, like: ‘I have detected a children, please lower down to the same level as his eyes and press the shutter, I’ll do the rest’, or ‘It seams you are trying to shoot some kind of event but all I can see is the back of a group of people, please move closer to where the action is taking place’.

Camera manufacturers might be able to launch a better, smaller, affordable camera that will deliver noiseless pictures full of nice colors but I’m not sure if they will be able to teach photography, it’s like trying to sell a piano that plays perfect melodies without having to learn how to play first.

Agreed. One of the most complicated my things my students stumble over is the complexity of cameras. Long gone are the days of students with K1000s and the ease of teaching the Exposure Triangle to them.

As for the Df? Oh, if Nikon had really stuck with the concept of “Pure Photography” and created a D-SLR true to the FM2 model. I would have bought one in a heartbeat. But no, they muddled it up with video (poorly) and – of all things I NEVER understood – introduced it with a ‘G’ series lens! :~/ Uh…where be that f-stop ring?!

Unfortunately, what you have pretty much described is a smartphone camera. And the camera manufacturers’ past forays into this kind of product — I’m thinking back to the 1980s here, with the Canon T50 and Olympus OM77, but also more recently, like the Nikon V1 — have left them kind of gun-shy about this kind of product. Better, they say, to have something with a “green” idiot setting that can be accessed with a single twist of a dial, but also have other settings easily accessible, rather than hidden in menus like on a V1, requiring a plug-in accessory like the Olympus OM-G, or simply not possible like a Canon T50.

I think the real issue is the smartphone has taken over the market. And if the camera manufacturers are to break this or even ride on it in any meaningful way, they have to a) market something the smartphone can’t do — basically, telephoto zoom — and b) enable their products to share and store images as easily as a smartphone and integrate with technology as easily as a smartphone, which basically means enabling them to tether to a smartphone through NFC, WiFi or USB for image sharing and via Bluetooth for sharing things like GPS.

I think one aspect of the issue that hasn’t been brought up is the time photography takes. In particular, the burden of the learning curve and time associated with post processing. I have absolutely no hard data to support this, but my gut feeling is that the millions of smartphone and point-and-shoot photographers are totally content to photograph for the e-mail and social media and, at some point in the buying process, turned away from DSLR-type photography, when told that they’d also have to learn about iPhoto (or its Windows equivalent), much less Photoshop or Lightroom, then spend the time using those applications to “perfect” their images.

Why should they? My daughter, for instance, is a 41 year-old IT professional and mother who spends most of her day on her computer troubleshooting large database issues; she’s no technophobe, by any means. She IS, however, someone who doesn’t want to then spend a lot of time laboring over several images to get them just right before she, yup, posts them on Facebook! She’s quite content to user her iPhone to get the image posted then move on to something else to do in what little spare time she has.

So how do the camera manufacturers and software authors sell her on photography? Beats me, but I don’t think they’re really interested in trying.

One last point–I fully agree that there are too many camera models. How does someone really discriminate amongst all of the Coolpix models? Do we really need four DX and four FX Nikon DSLRs? My guess is that color is the most used discriminator in Coolpix models (“I like the blue one”) and price governs in most others (“I want something for around $XXX). That’s where the saturation is and could easily be remedied.

I said it before a million times (or close) and I will say it again, as a pro photographer I want a camera that has a shutter speed dial, an aperture dial and ISO dial. I want to control if it is going to be in Manual, AP, SP and that’s about it.

I do not want video or a million menu items. Simple cameras are lighter, cheaper, smaller, more responsive (no million lines of code in their firmware) and I would have to think better image quality (no video or other in-camera image manipulations to clutter the sensor and the camera operation)

Create prsumer and consumer cameras and use the same concept of simplicity -not to mention making them cheaper- and people will but them…

Photography has always been a process. I believe people who want to use the process to express themselves actually enjoy all the time and skills it takes to get a good photograph. Nowadays, those who want to take a quick snapshot and skip the process have iphones that produce great quality shots, so they do not need to use/buy point-and-shoot or auto mode in DSLR, but enjoy pocket phones/cameras. That is all.

As I recently once heard someone say: There’s a fine line between a snapshot and a photograph. I’ve taken just as many ‘snapshots’ with my DSLR and mirrorless cameras as I have taken ‘photos’ with my smartphones. You’re somehow implying that one can only take snapshots, while the other is for taking photos. I – and many others – would beg to differ.

It was not my intention to imply anything. To me photograph is a process involving thing and snapshot is not, regardess of what camera you use. But I think it still holds that more photgraphs are taken with DSLRs and more snapshots are taken with iphones.

No, in the hands of an educated and observant photographer either instrument can be used to produce worthwhile photographs. In the hands of a klutz it matters little what is used, the result is always a snap.

I think it would be interesting to take that chart all the way back to around 1990 and see the numbers.

Think back to the days of having an SLR and a nice lens or two made you a “pro”. A decade later, everyone who had a kid in soccer was walking around with 3k worth of gear around their neck. I think a lot of people jumped in, rode the wave, and are not impressed anymore with spending a stack of money to get an image a much simple device can make with “in-device” processing.

I hesitate to add to the comments, as I find myself with a foot in both camps here, that is, the article is rubbish, and, the article is spot on! My business experience leads me in one direction, my photographic experience, in another. Let me explain, and please be charitable if you don’t agree with me. Due to work and family commitments I drifted away from the (very serious) hobby 20 years ago. At the time I had learned pretty much everything you could learn about using a film based 35mm camera. I was using the ‘first’ camera which featured AV and TV modes, before then, your camera had one or the other but not both. I learned about exposure compensation, and how to manual (yes manual) focus correctly, and many of the other things that still apply to DSLR’s. I was completely at home with that camera, and when I re-started the hobby five years back, it was as if I had never picked up a camera before, in many ways. I had white balance, high iso noise, complex menus as shown in the article, and all the compications of what to do with the images once they were on the memory card (photoshop and all the other software etc). I got there in the end, it did take a year, and that, from a relatively previously experienced photographer. What I struggled with was mastering the camera in the way I could do with the older film based one. As my experience of DSLR improved, so did my results, but there were some memorable fails along the way. Pride, I guess, prevented me from setting the mode to Auto, or Programmed, as I felt I should be up to the Av and Tv modes very easily. Having got camera set-up sorted, and post processing too, I learned that the lenses I was working with were not up to the job, so began a few years of selling and buying glass, to end up with the best (for me) within a sensible but not too tight a budget. After 5 years I am now able to assess a scene or situation, set the camera, ,and get the result, changing a lens if needed, and the results are getting very very pleasing at last. The success to fail ratio is far better! Having said all that, It must strike you that if a previously knowledgable film photographer had such a tortureous experience, what on earth are the newbies going through, with no prior experience at all. It seems to me that ebay are the beneficiary of many would be DSLR purchasers moving their ‘little used’ cameras because they are simply ‘too much’ for them to understand. Imagine you bought a D7200 and a decent lens because you were going on a holiday of a lifetime, and then came back with hundreds of bad images because you didnt know how to set something up properly! I bought a D5100 for my wife recently for a fraction of it’s new price, it had under 1500 exposures recorded! That is insane to me. So I think the hobby side of DSLR shooting is in decline because not only is it far to complicated for beginners (unless they are prepared to be relentless and learn how to use them properly) but also the high costs compared to quality point and shoot models. I would bet there are millions of point and shoot owners out there who tried DSLR cameras, and are now getting better results with their pocket cameras. Simplicity, portablility, and the size of prints required are all factors, as is price, inevitably. Nikon, Canon etc are not helping with the constant flow of new DSLR models, many aimed at new DSLR owners, and with such fast changes, it is very confusing for them! Finally, many are sold with a very limited range kit lens 18-50mm etc. New to DSLR owners may not realise how restrictive that range is, and immediately after buying a body and lens combo, feel cheated as they must consider another lens very soon after buying the camera in order to cover more subjects etc. I think this is one of the major flaws in marketing strategy. They should strip out these limited kit lenses, get the prices of the bodies lower, and provide FAR more information about which lens(es) might suit individuals needs better. Taking out the kit lens should make at least $100 difference to the camera price. Just my ramblings, but I am sure that as these products got to the ‘mass market’ during the last decade, a lot of purchasers felt disappointed with their gear and got out of DSLR shooting completely. None of this really applies to the pro models, which is really a different market.

In essence digital photography is no different to film photography. Exposure is still dependent on just three factors (aperture, shutter speed and ISO/ASA). White balance is no different to using a corrective filter.

I agree that digital processing/editing has become more complex but is it any more inconvenient than messing about in a darkroom? And if you used to post your films off for processing, you now download them to your computer.

Photography has always been a ‘minority sport’. It was the advent of the auto compact and then the camera phone which changed that and opened up picture taking to a wider public. Unfortunately for this wider public, better photographic results cannot be achieved through automation. There has to be some understanding, some practice and some skill involved for that goal to be realised. And it is those three things which create a glass ceiling for these ‘photographic aspirants’ who are generally too stupid learn and /or too lazy put in the work required. They have come to believe that everything can be done instantly with the push of a button. Well sorry, but some things can’t – which is why I believe camera sales will plateau out and serious photography will once again become the domain of a committed few. The rest will be very happy with their mediocre equipment and their mediocre results.

I agree, it’s false to say that these 3 parameters is “all there was to photography back in the film days”. There was a more daunting equivalent to “today’s metering”, there was a more daunting equivalent to “today’s white balance”, and darkroom work wasn’t exactly the most straightforward thing either (when at all accessible). There are also improvements like the electronic front curtain shutter or image stabilization, that you can choose not to deal with, but are definite IQ improvements if you do. This argument sounds like the usual “things were better back then” where if you look a bit closer it’s actually not that simple. Today you actually have the choice of what parameters you can deal with, and depending on what you choose the results will obviously vary, eventually a lot.

Hi Betty, I do agree with your analogy / comparison of film & digital, yes there were white balance issues, and of course, darkroom processing could be very painstaking and time consuming. Todays generation of newbies won’t even know what reciprocity actually means, but my contribution was only made to highlight that, however well you knew and used the film cameras of the 80′ & 90’s or even later, the jump to digital, even for an experienced film photographer, was far from easy. Leaving aside the three trinity skills which we all know, or should have known, from those days – film speed, aperture and shutter speed combinations for proper exposure – and some other skills the keenest of us knew – exposure compensation and depth of field issues – it still leaves us with A COMPLETE RAFT OF NEWLY NEEDED SKILLS. However much you understood film photography, you never went near ‘noise’ unless you pushed iso film stock a few stops in low light, and back then we called it grain. Likewise you never went near (because cameras didnt have them) af-s, af-c, auto bracketing, focus area modes, and many cameras didn’t have alternative metering modes other than ‘average’. So many new features needing understanding, but admittedly, behind it all, the same skill set. And then we have photoshop or whatever software you prefer to use…. that, in itself, is a daunting prospect to the new photographer who ‘just wants to take good photos’. I come back to what I touched on before. I think many hundreds of thousands of buyers got sucked into buying a DSLR because they thought this ‘want to take good photos’ ethos convinced them it was the ONLY way to improve on point and shoot. The plethora of digital camera magazines and online articles fuel that perspecive considerably, and they are not wrong, if, as you say, and as I too touched on, the new DSLR owner is prepared to be relentless and learn the skills! I think, from the vast numbers of ‘used’ DSLR’s on ebay, it is clear that many are unable, or unwilling to do this, and it is understanable to me, due to the far harder learning curve digital throws up, compared to film, back in the day. Each have their own skillset, but to me, anyway, digital was much harder, not so much to understand, but, having understood, to apply consistently, to get consistent good results. I truly think the people who tried and dropped DSLR photography have conversations with friends, family, colleagues along the lines of ‘oh God, I bought a DSLR and it was a nightmare, the colours came out wrong, I dont know why, the zoom that came with it only took you a tiny bit closer, and most of my photos were out of focus. The guy in the camera store said the camera was fine and tried to sell me a 400 page book on how to use the darn thing. I ebayed it and got a lovely panasonic point and shoot, which gives much better pictures and has an incredible zoom. Whatever you do, do NOT buy a DSLR you’re wasting your money!’ Among the uninitiated, I think the word is spreading that DSLR’s are not suitable for the family photographer who only shoots holidays, weddings, birthday parties and christmas. Apart from anything else, this kind of user only uses the camera 4 times a year tops. We used to have a joke about film camera users like this, with a roll of 36 shots on a film, which, when processed, had christmas shots at each end of the roll, with holidays and birthdays in the middle! Not everyone who buys a camera wants a hobby, they simply want better pictures of their loved ones etc. Maybe it IS that simple?

Sorry I don’t get your reasoning. From the starting point of a reasonably knowledgable film photographer, nothing in photography has fundamentally changed and much has become easier. As you say the basic trinity is just the same now as it was then. Even film grain was exactly the same ‘problem’ or ‘creative effect’ then as noise is today. You could over/under expose, push/pull development and use faster/slower films to manipulate results – if you were interested enough and knowledgable enough. Autofocus makes focussing easier not more complicated – and you can still revert to manual if you find the Modes too daunting. Average, spot and incident metering has been around for ever. All the other features buried in the menus of these new cameras are also there to make things which were once near impossible much, much easier – but only for those who are prepared to learn how photography ‘works’.

I think you put your finger on the crux of the cause for so much dissatisfaction when you point out that cameras have for a long time been mis-sold to people on the premise that a ‘better,’ more expensive camera will produce ‘better’ pictures for the average man in the street. It won’t. At least not without the man in the street making a little effort to learn the theory and practice of photography. Unfortunately the man in the street is generally too lazy to make that effort and wants the masterpiece he has in his head to pop out the back of the camera at the press of a button. That didn’t happen in the past and it isn’t going to happen any time soon.

It’s a sad but inescapable truth that we are getting dumber and lazier in leaps and bounds and expect more and more, faster and faster, with less and less effort. It’s also a contrary but equally inescapable truth that most things that are worthwhile demand a period of learning and practice before worthwhile output results. It’s not unique to photography. It applies in all spheres of life. Sadly, those that want everything to be fast and easy are bound to live in a world of ongoing dissatisfaction and disappointment.

I would say to these complainers, if your ambitions don’t stretch beyond the social media selfie or the holiday snap, stick with your camera phone. If you buy a more sophisticated camera for the same purpose, you will mess up – because you have no idea of what you are doing. And don’t complain that a sophisticated tool has let you down because it’s not dumb enough. It’s you that’s dumb, not the camera.

Disagree that digital is hard. In digital you can try and see, film never had this direct feed back. In fact digital is really about maximizing the data capture in the field , then shape with post processing. Film was terribly hard because of the technological entry barrier it had, just to try was expensive, and you had to do a whole film before you could get it developed. Formal learning was the go, more seen as a trade, today most people are self taught. Back then there were few people that had the means to print poster size images (had to be offset printed in large volumes to be cost effective) and the only way I could hang one up was to buy one ready made from somewhere else. I had enough money to by one slide film per month, 36 shots, every shot counted. No bracketing just to make sure. Light meter was a separate unit, no histogram, no automatic. While balance guess work, and you would have only had a tungsten filter anyway. Digital (technically) complicated? Today large prints are available to the everyone, to print up to A2 at home is possible. The ease of digital made photography available wide spread and we saw an influx of images. Everyone was now a photographer. The image that used to make money no longer did, the bar had moved up. We tried to fix it with more, more sharpness, faster focus, more sensitivity, more sophisticated software …. . Realisation sets in, that perhaps a professional level DSLR does not pay for itself just because it is professional. Today to produce a wow image is just as hard as it ever was, the tools to get there have changed, camera user parameters instead of hand held light meter, computer work instead of darkroom chemicals. It is an effort to produce an above average image, the effort (and expense) the masses are not willing to make. Cameras sales will shrink down to to what they where before the digital revolution just serving a professional core with higher prices due to lower volumes.

Betty, I find myself agreeing with your comment regarding learning curves with either the DSLR or point and shoot cameras. It’s true, most people will not take the time to read the manual, whether simple or complicated. In today’s world, instantaneous results are the key but we can take this all the way back to the late 40’s and early 50’s with the introduction of the Polaroid Land Camera. Those who could afford it, bought it because of its photo right now feature. Did it make them better photographers, no. What it did was fulfill the need for simple easy to obtain images; not unlike today’s smart phones.

I also agree with Michael Heaths analysis and with AutofocusRoss. No matter what the instrument, in order to make it work properly one needs to study that instrument but most won’t. Therefore the simple phone camera, as you Betty stated, offers the best, (or not so best), of both worlds. A way to make pictures of vacations, children, family and friends, and instantly post them to some sort of current social media. Just look at the back screen on your phone, press the little box when it comes up and boom, you have a capture. Instantaneous results are key in today’s society more so than at any other time. Seamless upstreaming to a FaceBook or Instagram page is what most folks want. Again simplicity and convenience is the name of the game for the greatest audience in “photography”. Most of us here, understand that this is not photography but it does serve a purpose.

Furthermore, the learning curve for the wet darkroom really represents no difference in the learning curve of modern software post processing. We just don’t waste paper or chemicals the way we used to. This takes time and effort to learn, like anything else we want to do.

Those of us who regularly attend PL don’t take pictures, we “MAKE” them. This takes time, this takes study and practice. It demands a continuous learning mechanism we chose to get better at and learn more about. Therefore, I do agree with Michael Heath that some of the demise of the camera market has to do with convenience.

All the comments and positions offered in this thread, positive or negative, are not taking into account the sociology of modern times and the instant gratification the last two generations demand upon society and manufacturing. Everything is getting easier to use. We once loved our video tapes but of course when finished watching a movie, we had to rewind back to the beginning so we could use it again. The CD offered the same thing but one step less in the process of viewing since no rewind was necessary. (I’m excluding some better features of the CD here just to make a point about convenience.) Most young marrieds today don’t cook, they microwave something pre-prepared from the grocery store. Cooking is a chore due to its preparation time and complicated number of ingredients needed to go into make dinner. This all equates with learning how to use the most simple of cameras or the dedicated instruments most of us use to create our “art”.

It is truly hard to agree or disagree with any of the participants in this thread. From what I’m reading I think every post has its points and should be considered.

Ross: I was actually hesitant to submit this article to Nasim for nearly the same reasons, and thank you for articulating your experience so well for us.

On one hand, I have my experience: Someone who grew up in the film age (I remember my dad’s Minolta 35mm camera well, and I have his Nikon N6006 sitting on my bookshelf) and who has a lot of experience with digital photography because it’s something I love doing so much, from capture to editing to publishing.

On the other hand, I know of so many more people who want to be good photographers – or, in my mother’s case, already a good photographer, just not with digital – but it’s so absolutely daunting taking up digital photography. I wrote this article on their behalf.

The film life was simple. You knew your film speed, shutter speed, and aperture. That was it. Developing film was all the ‘post-processing’ you ever needed to do. Now, you have to know ISO, shutter, aperture, white balance, resolution, shutter shake, autofocus modes… this is just madness for anyone who is not willing to jump into the deep end and determined to swim.

I agree with your assessment that hobbyists are part of the population dropping out of the market, and I think the state of the entry-level DSLR market is ensuring that non-enthusiasts wind up with less-than-desirable images and more frustration. Mirrorless cameras could solve that problem, being less complex than a DSLR and, therefore, manufactured more cheaply – possibly leading to providing a better lens in the kit. However, mirrorless cameras are just expensive carbon copies of their DSLR brethren, for the most part, which doesn’t resolve the simplicity/complexity issue and dissuades new customers.

Great article. I recently bought a D5500 which I’ve found to be a fantastic camera and a great upgrade from my D3100. However I still don’t think Nikon yet ‘get’ the two big trends in technology today: (1) the cloud and (2) innovation through software.

Nikon is at heart a hardware company, however what Apple has proven is that consumers want hardware and software combined in an intuitive package. Optically, my D5500 paired with Nikon’s 85mm f1.8 prime is far superior to my iPhone 6 camera. However the iPhone camera’s interface is intuitive (yet powerful and feature filled), cloud connected (for instant sharing) and upgradeable over time (with no effort, given Apple pushes its updates automatically and for free).

Compare this with the Nikon, which has a clunky sharing implementation (I first need to connect my iPhone to the D5500’s wifi network – disconnecting from my other networks?? – then open up Nikon’s app on my phone, download selected pictures to my camera roll and THEN post to Facebook/Instagram/iCloud). Admittedly, this is an improvement from my D3100 which had zero sharing features. Indeed, the interface on the D3100 is virtually the same as the D5500, which tells me that Nikon hasn’t updated this for probably a decade (given the D3100 likely borrowed from earlier Nikon DSLRs), although the touch screen on the D5500 is a big and welcome improvement.

Times have changed in the past decade. The smartphone happened. Instagram and 500px happened. iOS happened. Cloud computing happened. Nikon are relying on their hardware superiority and now risk becoming redundant in a new world of software and the cloud. In my view Nikon need to massively beef up their software expertise, create leading smartphone and tablet apps which seamlessly connect to their DSLR cameras and continuously update this software with new features for free.

The software on my D5500 should not be set and forget – I should get sensor algorithm upgrades for improved ISO and autofocus, interface upgrades, new picture profiles over time. Nikon’s iOS app should be able to connect to the camera far easier, it should enable instant sharing to any of my social networks, it should be able to control 100% of the functionality on the camera for remote shooting and live view, and it should offer advanced editing tools for post production on the fly. Nikon are already 5 years behind in this regard, if they don’t do something soon they will not catch up ever.

I don’t agree with your reasoning, and since you have chosen to single out the only Nikon that I really like, the Df, and the only Nikon that I own, I have to question any authority that you claim to have for your allegations. If you’re interested in photography, you have to learn how to use a camera. My wife uses her iPhone, and that’s fine, but none of her photos are printed to 8 x 10 and hanging on our walls. I agree with many of the others. There are so many manufacturers and so many good cameras, and so many people who have these cameras, that supply and choice has outstripped demand.

In a sense the camera manufacturers have made a rod for their own backs. In the ‘good old days’ of the Canon F1’s and the Nikon F1,2,3,4,5 and finally 6, there was a span of at least 5 years between one flagship pro model and its successor. And the market was smaller. And cameras were more costly. Then, with digital and with the advent of social media, photography became more accessible. Suddenly everyone was a photographer. The manufacturers started to churn out ‘new’ models like hot cakes in order to cash in. This plethora of photographic gear has flooded the market at the consumer end with cheaper and ever more confusing (for the uninitiated) cameras while at the higher end resentment has set in as cameras with minimal improvements are foisted onto enthusiasts and pros at ever higher prices. I believe they may have burned their boats.

I’ll bet if nikon & canon made smart phones there sells would go thru the roof,here’s something to think about : there is a lot more photographers today than there was in the film days, why ? because it is A LOT easier with digital than with film no more film to process no more sending sending your film off to get it processed. Today with smart phones same thing it is more convenient to carry JUST ONE device the can do it all take pictures, talk to someone, text, get on the internet & on & on. However if you look @ the charts, camera makers are still selling more digital cameras than they were film cameras. These days not all but most people don’t care about quality & I can prove it: How many people buy @ walmart ? how many mom & pop shops have to shut there doors because of walmart ? there is quite of few in my area & you DON’T get the same service @ walmart. & why do people go to walmart because it is convenient, same with smartphones even thou your pictures are not quite as good as they are with a dslr ( low light, long exp., time lapse , ect.) it’s convenient.

Interesting as much as the article is, i don’t think it paints a complete picture. The chart only goes back to 2012, which is quite a short span. It has peaks and troughs. The drop in 2 years explained by complexity? I can’t see that somehow. The DF and the X-T1 are the cause of the decline is the implication, or rather what the author feels are the type of things that contribute to the decline. That’s quite an assumption given the short length of the pattern. Those cameras are niche cameras that really only people who want to use that style would buy. Yes, Apple have made the world simpler but you can’t extrapolate that to cameras.

There are far too many trends and complexities with cameras to say one thing caused a perceived decline. How do we know there wasn’t a massive push to buy DSLRs a few years ago when people had their first taste of phone cameras then wanted something better? How do we know there wasn’t a phase that people thought it was hip and cool to own a DSLR? How do we know that most people bought their DSLRs a few years ago and now spend their money on upgrading lenses rather that bodies? Has the author looked at the pattern of lens buying to see if there is a correlation? What if the market has reached saturation, since the majority of consumers won’t upgrade as fast pros? What if secondhand camera buying has been made much easier because of websites like gumtree / ebay? Or even sites like digitalrev?Maybe the peaks and troughs relate to the release of cameras with innovative designs, or major upgrades?

To put it all down to the idea that complexity is the driver in the trends is nonsensical. Thats the same as any consumer product. The issue itself with regards cameras is far more complex and the idea that Nikon/Canon can improve sales by making their cameras one button wonders, again does not make sense. People still drive manual gearbox cars. Cameras haven’t changed in looks, its just society’s trends. Blaming Nikon and Canon’s designs on the decline is actually misleading. We’ll moan and whine about that, as photographers, because thats what we do. We think they need to get into the mirrorless game fast, innovate more etc, etc. Does the general public think that? Nope. They don’t think “I’d have bought a DSLR but its got more than one button, so I’ll think I’ll pass.” They’ll get a DSLR because the want better photos than their phone gives them, without having to pay thousands.

So again, that pattern isn’t really a pattern of a downward trend. It’s too short a span and its not even a straight decline.

I’m sorry but I disagree with just about the entire article. Look at the top of a Leica M3 and you’ll find it looks very similar to the DF and the XT-1. The point is that photography has always been this way. For those that don’t want to, or can’t elevate their skills from one of technological victim to one of understanding, there is the point and shoot. Just buy one put it on auto everything and be happy. This article is one of the silliest things I’ve read not just here but anywhere where it relates to photography.

I mean what are you complaining about? Your inability to understand your own equipment? It’s ridiculous. Camera companies make cameras, and if the general public is too thick or lazy to learn something new and the market shrinks as a result, then I think that’s a good thing. Keeps the idiots out of the gene pool, so to speak.

Photography has not always been this way. As I have stated previously, modern photography is significantly more complex than film photography ever was. You’re wrongfully oversimplifying the current situation (unless you’re willing to call physics professors, medical doctors, programmers, systems analysts, etc., all idiots – these are my friends and colleagues).

As well, the photography market is not shrinking. If anything, with smartphones sales, it’s growing. Dedicated cameras are the shrinking market. This is a problem (unless you’re a rich pro or a rich hobbyist) because camera companies made their profits off the sales of non-pros for a very long time. A shrinking market means higher pricing for dedicated cameras in order for those companies to remain afloat, which will price many more people out of the market, leaving but a small population of people who profit from their photography and well-heeled punters.

You mistake my analysis as ‘why dumb people should be allowed to use to a good camera’. Rather, I’m arguing that ‘camera companies that don’t accommodate a wide enough audience and acknowledge technology trends will cause the entire industry to contract, and you and I may not be able to afford decent camera equipment someday soon’.

I’m sorry but you’re wrong. I do have some idea of what I’m talking about, I’m doing post grad studies in photography this year having gained my BA in photography at the end of last year. Photography today is less complicated than film photography ever was. We can simply set everything to auto on a digital camera and forget about it if that’s what we want. I’m shooting a lot of film with a hand held light meter as well as digital and digital is just so easy in terms of camera function and operation it’s almost silly. I’m not denying the software back end is complicated, but the front end is stupid simple. Film production had its complicated back end but that’s another story. Your article is quite simplistic and shows a lack of contemplation and research. You might be a great guy or have written other well considered articles but this isn’t one of them.

Are you really suggesting that there is insufficient choice from camera manufacturers to accommodate a wide enough audience at present? Surely we are being swamped with every conceivable variation on a theme from the totally dumb Samsung/Apple phone to the professional flagships from Nikon and Canon. Whatever the problem is, it’s not lack of choice!

I think this article and the video it refers to (which I watched a few weeks ago) and I believe both significantly miss the point, as I think camera sales are not declining as much as they are returning to normal – or reverting to the mean. If my thinking is correct, oversimplifying cameras would be bad for future camera sales (and my guess is only an educated guess, just like anyone else’s, including the author’s).

Camera sales gained a big spike with the advent of digital, as they had a couple of decades earlier with the introduction of autofocus and decent zoom lenses. My thought is that the increased camera sales of over 10 million (and a peak much higher than that a few years back) was an aberration, an unexpected spike resulting from the ease of digital and the savings of no longer having to pay for film and processing. That it happened at the time of increased difficulty traveling through airports with film only sped up the transition to digital. Camera makers and armchair prognosticators drank the kool-aid thinking that this higher sales number was the new normal and that sales would plateau at an annual rate of 10 million or more units, with people annually replacing their entry-level model DSLRs and point-and-shoots. As others have noted, most people can now use their phones – which they always carry with them – and/or already have a functional digital camera. Why upgrade if your existing camera is good enough to post/view online and to print at standard sizes like 4″x 6″?

Thus, with the sales spike over, sales are returning to the pre-spike normal of 4 – 7 million cameras sold per year, sold primarily to hobbyists and pros. And while this group appreciates conveniences, I don’t believe they want cameras making all decisions for them – they want full control – and, if my argument is accurate, oversimplifying cameras would be the biggest mistake in terms of attracting these customers.

As you can see, there’s no ‘pre-spike normal’. There’s also not enough pre- or post-spike data to indicate what a regression to mean performance would even look like.

As well, you also need to consider where photography is going, despite the drop in dedicated camera sales. I highly suspect that if you added phones on top of the cameras in the above chart, camera sales would still be on that upward trend.

When you set your control variable as ‘dedicated cameras’ and then look at the sales volumes, all we’re seeing is a trend of contraction for a specific market. We don’t know where it will bottom out. Heck, it could regress back to barely-perceptable 1947 levels, for all I know. What I’m saying, and what Mayflower Concepts is saying, is that it couldn’t hurt for these camera companies to try something as novel as building an intelligent camera. “Steady as she goes, and full sail ahead,” doesn’t seem to be working out very well for them, at the moment.

This is a very interesting article. I agree, cameras (at least those that photographers use) are becoming more complex. After just purchasing a new DSLR, I can attest that there is a learning curve. However, although it can be daunting initially, if you stay with the same “ecosystem”, it isn’t that difficult. Changing brands will take longer to become proficient. I look at it as saving my brain from dementia!

Sadly, the generally dumb, general public generally (and increasingly) want products as dumb as they are. They want every product to be easy and fast and requiring no effort, no learning and no practice to use and will happily sacrifice quality for these ‘advantages’.

Unfortunately, even basic photography requires the understanding of at least three variables (and how they interact) – and that’s three more than most citizens are willing to entertain.

I fear we are sliding into a new Age of Endarkenment where ignorance, laziness and mediocrity rule and the lowest common denominator is our benchmark for achievement.

Interesting, I consider most of the people who I speak with who would rather a camera do more work on their behalf are very much smarter than me in some fashion or another. One of them works in the physics department, and he has a better chance of explaining the complexities of capturing light on a film or digital medium than he does doing all the work necessary to get an image right in-camera with a DSLR.

As John Kessler mentioned above – and I highly agree with his sentiment – if it were only three variables that anybody had to contend with for all cameras, there would be more dedicated cameras sold. However, this is far from the truth. A modern DSLR is nothing like a film DSLR, where all you really needed to know was film ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, to get a decent exposure. Now, we have white balance, sensor size, noise (not grain), shutter shock, aliasing filters, auto focus modes, metering modes, resolution (and is my lens capable of taking advantage of that resolution), post production work… that’s moving away from ‘basic photography’ into a land of ‘holy crap, who has time to calculate all of that in their head in the split second it takes for a moment to happen before it disappears?’

I don’t think people are dumb. I think camera companies are overly complicating things to benefit the needs and whims of a very small subset of camera users, which is going a long way to make would-be photographers feel dumb for not being able to wrap their heads around the complexities of photography. (If you don’t think photography is complex, I’ll see if I can get my friend in the physics department to write out the formulae for how photography actually works.

I don’t understand what John Kessler is talking about, current cameras *already* have automatic modes (that are activated by default !) for everything you mentioned that actually has to be dealt with. If you put your camera in manual mode and everything else on “auto”, you already have the camera you describe. The other points are considerations that you can’t take away. For example, what does “noise” have to do here ? It’s just a part of the technology, it can’t be “taken away“, you either care for it or you don’t.

Do you just want to take away all the available options and not say a word about what the camera is able to do ? Have a camera stuck in manual mode ? A camera stuck in auto mode (like, wait.. smartphones ?) ?

The complexity is a valid concern, but it appears to me that many people are taking their exotic point of view for more general than it actually is. I really don’t think there are that many people in the set at the intersection between “People who want to have control over shutter speed, aperture and ISO” and “People who shy away even from entry level cameras”. If you know how to use those three essential parameters I really don’t understand how you can’t deal with the added complexity of leaving everything else on their default settings, or how a Nikon Df for example doesn’t address at least partially this wish.

It looks like you’re blending the “total beginner that’s afraid he/she won’t be able to handle an actual camera” with the photographer who just don’t need an immediate access to all the fancy semi-auto, AF, metering and WB modes. One is probably already better served by a smartphone, the other could either go for a Df or a Leica for instance, or just ignore the additional options of their DSLR, it’s not like the *have* to deal with it.

As somebody who’s grown up shooting film, you couldn’t be more wrong about how “simple” film SLRs were. All of the variables you mention have their counterparts in film photography. White balance? Daylight vs. tungsten film, or using various filters to compensate for the “wrong” kind of light if film couldn’t be replaced. If anything, because you were stuck with one “white balance” all the time depending on your film, this was way more complicated if you wanted to make sure you had the right colour balance in your final frame. Sensor size? Different film formats. Just look at how modular and complicated medium format film cameras used to be compared to their digital counterparts today. Various APS formats on image sensors today also derive their names and sizes from film formats. They’re not something new to the digital generation. Auto focus modes? Also existed with film cameras. Considering AF only emerged in the 80s, though, options weren’t as mainstream until the mid-90s. Post production work? Again, had its film counterpart. Noise and grain? Well, you made the correlation yourself. Noise is much less of an issue today than grain ever was with film. We’re seeing ISOs that were unheard of in the 80s and 90s, and what’s more, they’re doing a bang-up job at keeping S/N ratios low for the sensitivities offered. Any film that was ASA 800+ would be quite grainy. I routinely shoot at 1600+ today.

None of this is new to digital photography, and your nescience (no offense) on the matter is telling. If you aren’t a photographer, why are you commenting on SLRs? Even back when film was at its peak, the SLR was something only professionals or serious amateurs actually interested in learning anything would purchase. Compact cameras that would “do everything for you” were numerous, and smartphones are even more numerous today. If you want the camera to do everything for you, then why would you buy a dedicated camera? Just use the smartphone.

What I don’t get is what you’re complaining about. You can’t have a feature-rich camera that is also dumbed-down. That’s a contradiction in terms. Manual controls are manual controls.W hatever the reason for drops in sales -if it isn’t smartphones- your article is speculative at best, buttressed by your opinion and those of your friends and family. Hardly compelling, sorry. Maybe people aren’t dumb (I’d disagree, however let’s presume you’re right), but you can’t automate creativity. If all you want to do is take snapshots, smartphones have completely replaced point and shoots. Where’s the market for a camera with no physical controls? What are you proposing as an alternative that the smartphone doesn’t already offer? About the only thing I actually agree with is that mirrorless cameras definitely need a design improvement; they’re clunky and the way most are designed does not make for very ergonomic captures.

For heavens sake, what has changed? There are still just three variables – just like the good old days. If the public want simple, they can set the camera to Programme Mode, point it in the general direction of the subject and press the button on the top plate – that’s the one at the right hand end. The problem is that they find all the other controls, intended for people who actually know what they are trying to achieve, hopelessly intimidating. Well there’s an answer for that and it’s called the iphone.

However, if you want differential focus, interesting effects, time lapse, high speed and the whole host of things that we can now do that were either impossible or unbearably cumbersome before, then sorry, you have to get of your butt and get educated.

I really cannot understand people who espouse complex photographic ambitions and then complain that the complex sophisticated tool that will enable them to achieve their complicated ambition is too complicated! You can’t have it both ways.

I wouldn’t say I despised anyone (with one or two exceptions) least of all the public whom it was my privilege to serve for many years. My statement was a general one, not specific to photography, although it holds true for that as well. I am a pragmatist and tell it like I see it without any oil or varnish. We can pretend that we are all beautiful, intelligent and athletic but the mirror tells us that an awful lot of us are just fat, ugly and stupid. Inconvenient and not very PC I know, but there you have it, for better or worse.

By the way, which part of my statement do you find untrue?

It’s not about my being some kind of elitist, it’s just that I find it ludicrous ( and a desperate reflection of the times) that anyone buying a sophisticated professional camera should expect it to turn them into a sophisticated professional photographer…and when it fails in that misallotted task, to complain that the camera is too ‘complicated’ and it really ought to be designed to be operable with a single button.

The fact is ALL camera sales are falling, even the simplest point and shoot, in favour of the camera phone – dumbest photographic device on the planet. And the other fact is that most people cannot be bothered to make the effort to learn or practice anything. They want instant success, instant gratification and instant fame – at the press of a button.

I like being in control of my camera. I fully understand the nature of F-Stops, shutter speed, ISO and focus. I shot for years with a film camera that allowed each of those (other than ISO of course) to be easily adjusted by twisting some knob or a ring while a meter with a spot mode let me check the exposure. The viewfinder had the ability to show me the focus while I manually set that as well. A button let me preview the depth of field. I was one with the camera and got good results.

Many modern cameras also have the ability to make those adjustments, but boy oh boy do they make it hard to do so. I never feel that I’m part of the canera. Instead I feel like I’m at war with it, trying to fight the beast so it will let me do what I want. So more often than I want I just switch it to auto.

Is it really that hard to build an affordable digital camera that can do what my 35mm film camera did in the 1970’s?

John, the second part of your comment summarizes very well what just about everyone I speak with is saying, though likely for somewhat different reasons. In essence, people don’t want to fight their camera to get a good image. A few necessary controls and a shutter button would do. A modern camera ought to be smart enough to handle the rest.

Is it really so hard to twirl two little wheels and press a button? Sometimes you have to operate a wheel and a button at the same time so I guess it can get complicated. Joking apart, the basic operations are the same and it’s not that difficult. But if you want more sophistication, then it can get more complicated. But that is universally true. If you want simple there’s no shortage of simple cameras – you can dumb right down to an iphone if you want, but if you want clever features and higher performance then you have to make al ittle more effort. That’s the price you have to pay. Get over it.

I before watched that now old Mayflower video. It is produced by a consulting firm and is simply a long, presumptuous job application telling they have the answer how to increase the camera sales again.

With such an arrogant attitude I seriously doubt any Asian camera producer hired them. Especially as they were trying to prove their point with some seriously flawed statistics. As we all know statistics are a worse lie than a damned lie!

The Mayflower video is simply rubbish and basing an article on it will be the same. Sure it is a good thing making cameras easier to use. But doing so will not magically bring back lost sales. People were buying more cameras a few years ago despite their complexity. So that can’t really be the reason of the decline in sales.

As others said smartphones and market saturation is the main reason for the decline in sales of traditional cameras. Why?

To answer that let’s simplify and divide the camera buyers into two groups. The first group is enthusiast photographers including a core of professional photographers who have a more serious interest in creating photographs. The second croup are common consumers who only want photos of their own lives and themselves. Let’s call them photographers and consumers.

At the beginning only photographers were buying more advanced system cameras, while consumers bought simple compacts like the Kodak instamatic in the 60’s. But in the 70’s something happened. SLR’s started to sell also to consumers. If one look for the most important watershed moment that must be the introduction of the Canon AE-1 in 1976. Even Nikon who before mostly was a pro camera producer joined the race for consumers buying SLR’s by introducing the Nikon EM in 1979. By 1980 the camera production had doubled compared to 1976 and essentially kept growing until a couple of years ago when sales started collapsing.

If we take the first thing first; How did the camera companies manage to sell system cameras like SLRs to consumers? First economics. Production costs had gone down while the world had become more rich. Some ordinary consumers now could afford a SLR camera. The Canon AE-1 had an auto mode making it about as easy to use as compacts of the time while offering distinct advantages over the prime lens only compacts of the time with choices of fast normal lenses as well as longer and wider lenses that was affordable.

SLRs kept the advantage over compacts during the film era while compacts also improved and camera production kept rising as a lot of consumers bought cameras. Then came the digital revolution and boom when everybody wanted to get ther photos inside their computer in the most easy way.

As the technology moved fast photographers exchanged their cameras after only a couple of years. Combined with an influx of consumers that during the years finally decide to replace their analog camera with a digital camera this caused an unprecedented boom in camera sales.

Suddenly sales took a nosedive. Worst for simple compacts who simply for consumers was replaced by smartphones. But DSLR sales also clearly lost sales in recent years. Reason is market saturation and good enough syndrome.

For most photographers DSLRs was already good enough with 12-18MP and definitely when reaching more than 20MP. For consumers many are still happy with the 6MP or whatever MP the DSLR had when they decided to step into the digital system camera market, and like with film cameras they often don’t see any reason to exchange the camera unless it gets broken. So, during the years most of the market have now made their digital upgrade and sales will sink to a more regular, normal level, that for traditional cameras will propably be lower than in the top years for analog cameras because the presence of smartphones and other non traditional cameras like actioncameras.

Mirrorless cameras didn’t lose sales as much compared to DSLR’s as buyers are moving from DSLR’s to mirrorless cameras. In some Asian countries mirrorless sales are said to be on same level or already exceeding the sales of DSLRs. In Germany the mirrorless share of the system camera sales was 25% in 2014 while other European countries reached that figure already 2013 and mirrorless cameras represented one third of the sales last year. It is easy to predict mirrorless will sell better worldwide than DSLR’s within just a few years.

How does the future look like? Sales of traditional cameras will continue to fall until they reach a stable normal level. Most traditional system cameras will like 40 years ago find buyers among photographers. Consumers now have their smartphones which in the future will offer better photographic features than today. For those that want a longer zoom there will still be some super zoom compacts for sale. A smaller group of consumers may still buy a system camera because of some need or just because they can. But the sales to ordinary consumers will be much lower as they no longer have much need for a traditional cameras, especially not system cameras.

While improved handling of current cameras certainly will be welcomed by photographers that doesn’t mean consumers suddenly feel a need to buy cameras.

And what about new markets? Aren’t the potentials there huge? No! While there are emerging markets with an increasing middle class that can afford cameras consumers there move straight for a smartphone. Cameras are mostly bought by photographers that are far fewer than the lost consumer sales in developed countries.

So the sales of traditional cameras may drop as low as numbers that last was seen in the 80’s despite a population growth of 2 billion people since then!

How will the traditional camera market look like 5-6 years from now?

For full frame cameras Canon and Nikon will continue to dominate as they have the most complete systems already and that is not going to change in a few years.

APS-C DSLRs still dominate sales today because the cheapest entry level cameras still offer a better value than the cheapest mirrorless cameras. But in time that will change making APS-C DSLRs a nishe choice for those who prefer having an optical finder instead of an EVF despite bigger size than APS-C/M43 mirrorless cameras or as a budget solution for more reach with tele lenses compared to full frame DSLRs.

Mirrorless cameras will totally dominate sales for APS-C and smaller sensor system cameras as well as for total sales of system cameras.

Standard, simple compacts will almost be extinct as they have been replaced by smartphones. Various speciality compacts sell in decent numbers. But total digital compact sales have fallen to the levels of the beginning of the century.

What can the camera companies do about the situation?

Not much except adapting in the best way possible to still be competitive and move into other markets like other types of cameras or something completely different if they want to try keep sales and profit intact. Canon and Nikon both realise the sales during the digital boom will never come back and have already made moves for optical companies.

Are there really no new cameras that could start a new consumer sales boom?

Traditional cameras – No.

Non-traditional cameras – Maybe.

Action cameras sell quite well, but is still a nishe product. Sony’s QX cameras for smartphones sold better than expected. But when we have good and affordable smartphones with an optical zoom who needs them then?

I do however see great potential for one type of camera I would call “Life-cam”. It already exists in a few different simple versions. Essentially it is a small box with a simple camera that can be clipped on the clothing and take a photo at a set time, like every 30 second or make a short low resolution video. Essentially one can say it is a kind of critter cam for humans. And as people get more egocentric – as the selfie trend show – documenting ones whole life will be the logical next step. Why write a diary when a life cam can record it all!

Now if some bigger company could develop this concept, for exemple with a connection to a smartphone for direct uploading on an internet page and with more functions than todays simple devices it could be the gadget to have if done and priced right.

I especially look forward to models with the small camera module separated for practically invisiable placement just for the controversy it will create when everybody wear concealed cameras and act like moving surveillance cameras all around us!

So – simple conclusion: Leave the sophisticated cameras – be them mirrorless or DSLR – for those, who use and enjoy all the functions of this gear to get the pictures they want and they’re capable to produce, leave the more simple mirrorless for those enthusiasts who are enjoying the larger sensors and fine glass and are willing to pay for them… and leave those, who are of the opinion that they can get excellent pictures without learning anything about photography, the interaction between exposure and aperture, and at least a little bit about how their camera works, with their iPhones and cheap cameras… and have them accept the partially poor results when taking pictures apart from standard situations.

That’s because cheaper, simpler cameras are still too expensive and insufficiently dumb. And that’s why camera phone sales are now measured in the billions. Just one touch screen – not even a button to press. That’s where we have got to. Nirvana for the masses.

This is like saying all the menus and controls offered by an operating system are waaay too complicated for grandma, so they should just have a single button in the middle of the screen that does everything. If people want to learn how to use computers, they learn how to use their OSs. Similarly, if people want to learn how to control cameras, then the manual controls should very well be on offer by manufacturers. Program mode is available on each and every camera that is on offer to the mass-market, so all of the arguments are a tad moot.

There’s no easy way of condensing manual controls onto a touch screen -or condensing them down further than what we already see. If you want absolute simplicity, stick to your smartphone, with a few buttons that do everything. People who want more controls need physical dials and buttons. Why else would you buy a camera? You know, a device dedicated to taking photographs? How do you take the theory of photography out of photo-taking?

Finally, the choices the author uses in illustrating “unnecessarily” complicated cameras is quite ironic: they aren’t marketed to Mr./Ms. Average at all. Nor are they cheap. They wouldn’t appeal to anybody who isn’t interested in learning more about photography. If that means a drop in camera sales, so be it. I’d rather have a smaller market than have choices that are “stupidified” for the masses.

I come from the camera industry as a distributor (and ex-distributor) of some well known brands including PocketWizard and ThinkTankPhoto. As a whole, the industry have seen better days. And if Canon / Nikon continues to try to milk the industry by increasing margins and giving us more megapixels, they will fail like how Kodak, Nokia, Palm, Blackberry and the rest did.

I remember being frustrated with Palm for churning out similar PDAs while the competition was adding killer features. The same way with Nokia. It was all about slightly increasing the screen size, processor and what not, which amounts to milking the industry.

Then came Apple and the industry was over for them :( Unless standalone camera manufacturers up their game, they’ll be gone too. I wrote the below as well. Appreciate your thoughts! :)

Making photos with simple point and shoot cameras is the hardest and most complex experience I’ve ever had. You have no idea where this thing place the focus, what will be the shutter speed, will it trigger flash in broad daylight or not and so on. The only way to make some photos with this thing is to try to guess random logic of inner CPU, which is most of the time unsuccessful.

Pro and semi pro DSLR provide the easiest and fastest way to shoot. Phones and point and shoot users don’t make photos, they make random snapshots, 80% of which focused everywhere but the object, random shutter speeds and pop up flashes. I wouldn’t call it “photography”

High quality DSLRs are easier – but only for those who have taken the trouble to educate themselves a little. For the majority, too lazy or dumb to make that effort, lazy point and dumb shoot is the only option.

A good article with many good points made in it as well as in the comments. However, one factor affecting camera sales seems to be glaring in it’s lack of mention. What affect does the world economy being in the tank have on camera sales? The spike in camera sales actually came after the start of the recession but that can be explained by the fact that the newer/better cameras were an attention grabbing high end toy bought by those who are largely unaffected by economic swings. IE; the rich or well to do. That class of buyer has a very short attention span and will move on once the buzz is gone. Merchants of high end products always seem to stay in business during hard times while others are folding their tents. There is a reason for this and I think it has a large impact on camera sales.

Why does Nikon and Canon cater to the minority of DSLR users instead of the majority who are not? Likely that minority makes up for a majority of their revenue!! Even if you could build fully automated affordable camera without the dials and selections you would not necessarily improve your photography. You would need to discuss composition and light which the author does not address. As we venture into this field, we find that it is NOT the equipment or camera that really matters. It is composition and light!!!!! How could this author place all the responsibility on equipment? I think we all go down the same path, blaming the equipment instead of the photographer. Only after investing thousands, shooting thousands of images and post processing most of them do we realize it is not the equipment it is me! No camera is ever going to change composition and light. So while the author laments about the complexity and expense of the equipment, that is not the problem or the issue in my opinion.

Xrulan, although you are correct and Betty’s comment about the poor craftsman blaming tools is also correct, you are not taking into account that we here on PL and not like the people who buy point and shoot or advanced bridge cameras or entry level DSLR’s. We are willing to study our craft and will spend on the equipment we need to make our craft easier and better but the article is not about us. It is about “them”, those who just want instant results and seem to want those results better then they are willing to learn to make.

I think them were once us. I too thought there were too many options and selections. That the camera was too complicated. BTW, I am not taking about digital. I am talking about film and include in that mix the darkroom and chemical processes we don’t have to do now. I don’t think our attitude has changed. There will always be those who want it easier and better. It is not just photography but everything. This view is not new but rather it is as old as mankind. You would have to go back to those who invented the wheel and think that they too just wanted to make things easier and better. There is no answer here, no right or wrong. It is just the way it is. .

Xrulan, I am in full agreement with you. Perhaps, having a degree in photography, and having learned in the class room technique for the camera and dark room my journey may have been a bit easier then some who took it upon themselves to study and learn completely by trial and error. But I do remember overexposing an entire roll of film for a school assignment once and blamed it on the light meter. It must have been off. My teacher asked me if I was taking incident or reflected readings. Reflected, of course. Hmmm was his reply and he just walked away. So you think maybe it wasn’t the meter after all? LOL I often tell youngsters that there are three things that will govern their lives. 1. The way they want things to be, subjective. 2. The way they ought to be, subjective. 3. The way are, objective. The way things are, really, is all we have to deal with unless we can change any thing ourselves.

John, I’m sorry if I didn’t add enough to my comment to make clear my thought. However, no where in my comment to Xrulan, do I indicate that those with entry level equipment are not welcome at PL. I make no mention of that whatsoever and I believe you are reading something into my comment that isn’t there. It is my presumption Xrulan and I were both relating to those who may use any camera perhaps six times a year and don’t have the desire to learn anything about the equipment or better photography skills. I believe those who do spent time on PL have that desire and I can’t think of anyone here in this group that wouldn’t be willing to assist those who truly want to learn.

John, same to you. In fact I have a small class of junior high kids today whose assignment was to work only with a point and shoot for composition. Sixty years ago, when I wanted to use better equipment my Uncle Willie would not let my dad hand over his Roli until I learned composition with my Kodak Brownie Hawkeye. When he was satisfied that I was getting better with my photography at 9 years old, he gave me a 35mm Agfa that I used for a long time. Wish I still had it today.

Frankly, photography is no more complicated today than it has always been. You have to understand exposure, shutter speed and sensitivity and modern cameras, as older ones, permit you to do that, not much more. It is no more complex to shoot with a Nikon 800 than with a Nikon F of the 1960ies. So you can use wifi and bluetooth to transmit images, but that does not seem to stop people from buying and using smartphones.

The dominating factor has to be smartphones and the ease of use of their cameras. All those who earlier would buy a simpler camera and use P mode exclusively now use their phone. Secondly, prices have gone way overboard, but are coming down. That being sais, a Canon A1 on 1970 was not an inexpensive article to buy and I am not sure that a 5DMIII is very much more expensive in 1970 dollars.

In conclusion, I don’t buy the complexity argument at and believe that the economy in general and the hundreds of millions of smartphones with cameras are the main culprit for the reduction in the number of traditional cameras sold.

The point of the article is not the smart phone itself but the ease of use as you also point out. You’re correct in stating photography is no more complicated today than yesteryear; just different. As Michael Heath’s, article points out, it isn’t the smart phone specifically, it is the ease of use in compared even with the simplest of point and shoot cameras. For everyday use there is no learning curve to the smart phone. The gist of the article isn’t that the smart phone is prevalent it is the ease and convenience of any device the consumer is looking for.

Nasim, please choose your guest posters more carefully. Or get someone like Thom Hogan to write for you, if you want articles about the industry that are thoughtful and well researched.

This is just a straw man argument. Premise: “Modern cameras, in essence, are way too complicated.” Evidence: Comparison of one-button cameras versus modern expensive professional digital cameras that cost ten times as much. Also, a random sampling of my friend’s opinions, and also I’ve worked in the IT sector for a few years, so trust me.

The author wants “an intelligent, quality camera that does 90% of the work” but conveniently ignores the fact that THESE PRODUCTS ALREADY EXIST and pulls out the professional camera as a straw man to support his spurious argument. He wants “No dials. No buttons. No complex menus. No fuss.” and claims that “no modern dedicated camera can match that simplicity.”

FALSE.

There are tons of “small, decent quality cameras” out there, ready for you to buy, at fire sale prices. Just go to your local department store and pick up a digital point and shoot, or buy a premium phone on contract. If the author thinks these aren’t good enough, then he hasn’t been reading camera reviews of these products – digital point and shoots are exactly what he wants – “small, decent quality cameras”. No, they won’t match the image quality of a DSLR, but guess what? In the 1980s, Grandma’s plastic 35mm point-and-shoot didn’t match the quality of a Nikon F4 either. And no one in their right mind would compare the two and complain that the F4 was “too complicated.”

Ugh. Do a better job vetting your writers. Some IT guy with a camera? You need more signal, less noise. Fewer, better articles.

And don’t even get me started on the author’s failure to understand the various issues with CIPA numbers, which are just units (unadjusted for population and wage growth, product mix shift (to higher/lower profit per unit) etc.). They also aren’t seasonally adjusted (and there is a strong seasonal trend), and ignore the impact of economic and exchange rate fluctuations. Finally, while CIPA now breaks out DSLR vs. Mirrorless vs. Compact, they don’t include phones, and they didn’t do those breakouts for analog cameras – e.g. there is no breakout of plastic 35mm film point and shoots vs. full SLRs. If you added camera phone unit sales to that graph (which other analysts have done in the past) you’d find that the camera industry is remarkably healthy – but the traditional companies aren’t participating, and the newer entrants like Samsung, Apple, HTC, Motorola, LG, etc. are doing just fine. The old guard enjoyed a groundswell of digital point and shoot sales beginning about 15 years ago, but the cheese moved, and now Canon and Nikon are back where they were 40 or 50 years ago – selling mostly high-end SLRs, with a much smaller total market share.

“The old guard enjoyed a groundswell of digital point and shoot sales beginning about 15 years ago, but the cheese moved, and now Canon and Nikon are back where they were 40 or 50 years ago – selling mostly high-end SLRs, with a much smaller total market share.”

Bob, it was an opinion piece based on research by Mayflower Concepts. If you watch the video (link provided above), you will know what Michael is referring to in terms of complexity. Nothing wrong with stating another opinion – at least it created this discussion and that’s already good. What Thom Hogan writes is also an opinion and you clearly have your own opinion on the matter. Who is right and wrong? We can’t tell, as there is insufficient data to make a reasonable statistical analysis. Judging from the comments, there are people who both agree and disagree with the article. I agree with some points, but disagree with others and there is nothing wrong with that – it does not make the article bad, or the author less qualified for the job. The people behind Mayflower Concepts are also experts, so you are essentially disagreeing with them, not Michael.

I am sure the bigger picture is quite a bit different from what is presented by CIPA, but unfortunately, there is no other data to refer to make a reasonable analysis. Until we have this data, everything everyone says is just an opinion, nothing else…

You can see the drop in DIY; B&Q closes 40 shops, to reallise that people today cannot be bothered. Same with cooking. Eat pre – processed takeaways loaded with sugar, salt and other gunk. There seems to be a change in today’s ethos for immediate gratification. Cure ? Nil that I can see.

You are pretty much suggesting that we should discard the capability of cameras to satisfy people who don’t really care about photography. The fun in photography for a real photographer lies in figuring out how to get the photo they way they want, not in the end result that is the photo. If you are simply taking photos to impress some Facebook friends, if you simply want “good photos” without caring about how they are made, if it doesn’t amaze you how much you can do with a real camera, you are not a photographer.

I know too many people who think “If I buy a pro camera I will get better photos”. Then they can’t be bothered to learn photography so they shoot with everything set on auto and wonder why photos from their phones often look better. This kind of mentality is just wrong. It’s a superficial and pretentious way of thinking. It’s just as awful as thinking “If I buy a $10,000 dollar guitar, I’ll surely be able to play as good as a musician” or “If I buy a better computer and mouse I can do e-sports like a pro gamer”. The gear does not simply output good photos! It’s so hard to emphasis this in the photo industry because it doesn’t take much to make a half decent shot on a DSLR, and people think it’s all thanks to the camera. A good camera provides you the tools to do what you want. An iPhone doesn’t. The settings on a real camera lets you choose all kinds of ways to shoot. The iPhone has a button.

For a photographer, the features on a camera are enabling. The whole purpose of having those settings is to give the photographer control. It’s to provide them the tools for creation. The buttons and dials are put on the camera to provide convenience to the photographer. After getting used to them, a photographer can adjust settings on demand, wasting no time when an opportunity for a good shot arrises. You mistake this kind of convenience for complication simply because you have not got the passion for photography. You are a “photo consumer”, and for those “photo consumers”, let they have the iPhone 6. It’s perfect for what they want. It has improved pixel counts, vibration reduction, reduced noise. These things are just the parts of a camera that are always improvable. It doesn’t mean the iPhone can compare to a real camera on how much tools/control it provides the photographer with.

The reason those shots from the apple gallery look nice is because the photographers have found situations where the little tools that the iPhone provides is enough, and just right to make a good shot. It does not take into consideration all the other shots that the iPhone didn’t make because it has a sensor too small for bokeh, lens not long enough for telephoto or wide enough for wide-angle, or an unadjustable shutter speed. Read some of Ken Rockwell’s review and you will soon see that a photographer like him would understand that the gears are meant to be enabling. They offer you tools. But they do not make you a photographer. If you are a good photographer and you know what kind of photographer is suitable for iPhone, or even a disposable camera, you will be able to make good shots in the right situations, but you will always be limited by that one button.

And a steep learning curve? No. Photography has a very very VERY shallow learning curve. You can pickup a camera with no knowledge of how to use it, look up some articles on the internet, start practicing and notice a difference in your shots right away. It’s why photography is so popular. A low entry barrier and a shallow learning curve. Musical instruments have a steep learning curve, as it takes you months of practice before you start sounding remotely good.

Those buttons and dials ARE the selling points of a real camera. The photos produced by the cameras are not. Real cameras are meant for photographers. If a “photo consumer” wants to buy a pro DSLR to get good photos, they’ve looked in the wrong place. If manufactures of real cameras started producing cameras with the aim of “giving people good looking photos without any work”, THAT would really be the day when the photo industry can no longer be saved.

In the old days you would buy a Kodak Instamatic, Brownie, etc for those family snapshots, and a 35mm Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Leica, or MF, etc if you were into learning how to use a camera to be creative. Today, most people will use their iphones for family snapshots, and should probably only purchase a Nikon etc if they care enough to learn how to use them properly. The market seems to have split into two parts once again.

For what’s its worth here’s a few thoughts about where I think the camera business is going and what manufacturers need to do to stay profitable…and in business.

First off, the manufacturers need to do a much better job actually listening to camera buyers and giving them the products they want. A good case in point is the Nikon 1 V3. While the camera did bring some new features that add value to owners, Nikon made some strange decisions on other issues that detracted from the camera’s functionality like the detachable EVF and grip. There was no reason that these could not have remained as an integral part of the camera as they were with the V2. It makes sense to me that making three separate pieces is also more expensive than making one body that integrates the three components so that design decision also drove up manufacturing costs…a losing decision on so many fronts.

Forcing the bundling of kit lenses like the 10-30 PD zoom simply makes no sense. All it does is drive up the cost of gear, duplicating lens focal ranges that existing customers already have, and driving people away from the potential to ‘upgrade’ to newer models. I understand why manufacturers bundle lenses with bodies – the majority of DSLR buyers only ever buy the kit lens and never take it off the body. Consumers should still have the option of a ‘body only’ purchase. Otherwise manufacturers are saying by their actions that they think every buyer is a ‘new’ one. This is just silly marketing as it hurts future sales to existing owners.

Speaking of ‘new’ models, manufacturers are also guilty of falling into the marketing trap of bringing out far too many ‘new’ models with very modest, incremental improvements. Product development and the marketing of new models adds tremendous cost to operations, hurting immediate and longer term profitability. Manufacturers need to be a lot more prudent about bringing new cameras to market and only do so when they have meaningful, and significant changes. That way they can amortize their development costs over a higher number of units and price their products accordingly giving buyers more value at lower cost. This will become more and more critical as camera volumes continue to drop in the future….and yes, I do believe the camera market will continue to shrink. Ten years from now these will be the ‘good old days’ for camera and lens makers.

Since Photographer Life readers know that I shoot extensively with the Nikon 1 system hopefully they’ll take my comments here in context, rather than interpret them as me taking a ‘cheap shot’ at Nikon. Let’s look at the recently launched Nikon 1 J5 camera and all the hub-bub about it being able to shoot 4K video – a ‘first’ for the Nikon 1 system true enough. But…it can only shoot 4K video at 15fps which makes it basically useless as the video footage is choppy when there is any kind of subject movement or even when there is movement like ripples on the water in the scene. The basic question is why even bother coming out with the camera and stick underperforming 4K video in it at all. Nikon would have been much better off to wait until they could integrate 4K video in the Nikon 1 product line and provide it at minimum 30fps – at least they’d be giving buyers something that would actually work properly. Again, this is just silly marketing and product development.

The end benefit of listening to customers leads to effective niche market differentiation. I think this is where the camera market is ultimately headed. The days of broad market differentiation are over. I think in the years ahead we will see manufacturers concentrating on specific market segments and withdrawing from other segments where they simply don’t have the economies of scale to generate sufficient margin to remain profitable in those segments. We see some hints of this happening already with Nikon going after landscape and studio segments with high density sensors like the 36MPs in the D800, and Sony going in the opposite direction and reducing pixel density to improve low light performance. The Nikon 1 product line may eventually end up not have any S or J models at all with the V model focused on sports, nature and other action shooters who want extremely high frame rates and are willing to pay for it.

I think there will be a lot more joint initiatives in terms of product development. We see this happening now with companies like Nikon and Tamron filing a joint patent on a new 200-500 lens. This makes sense to me as the cost to bring new products will keep escalating and companies will need to forge these kinds of alliances to be able to compete effectively.

There will be an increase in ‘behind the scenes’ manufacturing cooperation between various manufacturers. Even now many buyers of ‘big name’ lenses would be shocked to learn what company actually built the lens they paid ‘premium dollars’ to own. In the bigger scheme of things it doesn’t matter anyway – as long as buyers get the performance they seek, the point of manufacturer is a moot point. This is the essence of branding and premium pricing.

Ultimately I think the camera market will fragment even more into a number of smaller niche segments and manufacturers that are smart will follow that fragmentation and pick their opportunities carefully. We will need to see far fewer camera models from each manufacturer in the future – if not we’ll likely see the failure of some brands.

None of us who are not employed by a camera or lens manufacturer can really predict what will happen with individual manufacturers and many business analysts have been predicting that in the future only Canon, Nikon and Sony will ultimately survive as only those three companies will have the necessary economies of scale. I find this prediction a bit simplistic. Some of the smaller players like Fuji are trying hard to differentiate themselves with proprietary sensor technologies and the image quality they generate. Others like Panasonic seem to focusing on hybrid cameras like the GH4 and carving out niche markets such as wedding photographers who need a camera equally capable with stills and video. And, also bringing out innovative bridge cameras like the FZ-200 that provide a lot of unique functionality at a good price. I think this is where success for all camera manufacturers lies in the future. Not trying to be all things to all people by trying to develop and market a wide range of products, but by picking a specific market niche and dominating it. In the case of Panasonic a profitable future may be found in only producing cameras like the GH4 and FZ-200 and forgetting about everything else.

I’ve been primarily a Nikon shooter for 40 years. How do I think this will play out for that brand? I think the Nikon 1 product line will continue to evolve and improve – and eventually the performance will encroach on the lower end of the DX camera line. Nikon will focus on its FX product lines and drive out manufacturing costs so it can offer full frame bodies at lower and lower costs. Eventually this will lead to the disappearance of DX bodies and lenses. Certainly not tomorrow, but I’d be surprised if they’re still around in 5 or 10 years.

My question is, are you kidding us? As I think you are, I won’t bother you with a long comment. Because as you know—

—there are lots of “small, decent quality cameras” which can be used as point-and-shoot devices or in a more elaborate way, as the user chooses; and cameras which cost a hell of a lot less than an iPhone 6 at that; and—

— there are lots of inexpensive cameras that leave you with more than “reasonably satisfying results;” and

— there lost of cameras—costing from a few hundred to thousands of dollars—that do all of the job for you, or let you do it…

If you want a point and shoot – there are plenty to choose from. Or use your phone. Why would anyone who can’t be bothered to learn how to use a high end camera even be looking at them? I don’t really care if my camera is too complicated for others … they don’t have to buy it, and they don’t have to use it. I will gladly compare my photos to theirs …

Imagine if when flying a Jetranger I thought all those dials were too complicated … would you let me fly you somewhere? No. Passengers don’t need to know how to fly the aircraft. So the dials could be intimidating … who cares? You are a passenger. But they all have a purpose. Just be glad that the person at the controls knows what they all do.

Excellent reply. In every field of endeavour, as expertise and sophistication grows so does the complexity of the tools required to carry out the task. Those that cannot be bothered to learn how to use the tools will never be able to carry out the task. As you say, there are pilots and there are passengers. Not a bad motto for life?

Sadly, I have to agree with your general premise. It seems like many vendors, including one big M4/3rds manufacturer (Olympus) cater to professionals and advanced amateurs instead of to the masses with their higher end cameras. In a way, that seems natural as you would think a high end product would have more features and hence be more complicated to use. That said, take a product like the Olympus OMD-M1. This beast is complicated even by my standards. I love the thing for what it can do and its size but the menu system is something only a deranged engineer could love. It pours on unneeded complexity without making the really simple all that simple (too many buttons / controls) Again, I love it, but it really is only for the very dedicated. You will never get huge sales out of a device like that.

Scene modes that you suggest along with touch screen controls would go along way toward alleviating the problem and provide obvious encouragement from the photographer by providing great results. If you had the controls you suggest the photographer would get better results than they could possibly achieve on a smartphone in an equally easy to use package. If you then suggested the best lenses to match with a scene mode, you would also get additional lens sales. Here’s hoping the vendors listen.

Probably not just the camera’s are too complicated, also the whole workflow including postprocessing is too much. I made for 20 years great photographs wit an manual filmcamera. The only things you can change are shutterspeed, focus and opening. All concentration goes to your eyes and not to settings or equipment! But… the camera industrie needs something new all the time…

There are plenty of cameras out there that can be used as simple point-and-shoots. Having many controls does not mean you need to use them. They might intimidate you during the first weeks but after that you should be fine. I know so many people who buy an entry-level DSLR and only use it with the kit lens in Auto mode with the pop-up flash blasting everything to ugly. They seem to be enjoying what they have.

The real problems of the camera industry are the following:

– Most people see when a photo is really good but they wouldn’t go through all the hassle to get that photo. Instagram is enough for them. And even many so-called professionals get away with some pretty bad errors because average people just don’t notice them. Most times people will choose convenience over quality. That was true with tapes vs. records and is true with today’s cameras (especially zooms vs. primes). This is dependant on another problem:

– The “good-enough” point has long been reached, especially since people have stopped printing and now only show their photos in really low resolution on the computer / internet. The D5500 hardly offers anything the average user today needs over a D5100. Why spend a lot more when you can just buy a cheap D5100? Today even those who buy a DSLR will stay with the kit lens because the results are rather decent. In my parents’ generation everyone used nifty fifties because film was slow and needed faster lenses and because the quality of zooms just wasn’t so good yet. Now even super zooms are usable (for sharpness; the large DOF still ruins many photos). Still slow but most consumers haven’t understood the meaning of aperture or they don’t realise how ugly direct flash is. And they believe zoom range is the most important metric of lens quality… The sales problem is simply that the gains for the consumer are not worth the cost anymore. Really simple. And an easy-to-use camera like you suggest would only postpone the decline for a few years it wouldn’t actually change anything.

To give average people a reason to use a camera over their phone I would suggest the following: – Simple mirrorless camera with wysiwyg EVF – 24 MP APS-C sensor – Fixed 24mm prime lens with fast aperture (like f1.4 or f1.8) and one ring for digital zoom up to about 85mm EFOV – Good AF (good enough for photographing kids) – One dial with good modes (single portrait, group portrait, sports, landscape, …) – One dial for exposure compensation – Big battery for at least 500 shots – Touch screen – Wifi – No freaking built-in flash – JPEG only – Electronic shutter only with pretty fast read-out – Pretty small

The rest is software: – Face detection AF (also adjusting the aperture for everyone in a group shot to be in focus) – Aperture / shutter / ISO according to chosen mode and light situation – Shutter speed adjusts to camera motion and chosen digital zoom in addition to the mode (e.g. senses when it’s on a tripod / wall / table or when someone has really shaky hands) – Natural-looking multi-shot HDR (like iPhone) – Great one-shot HDR (push shadows without losing contrast, pull highlights) – In-camera panoramic mode – Simple editing via touch screen (usability like Snapseed) with – hate to say this – vintage presets and silly effects – Upload option to social media and email via Wifi (can be marked for upload when offline and will be uploaded when connected) with on-screen touch keyboard for image caption – Option to order prints directly from camera via Wifi connection – Computer app that downloads the JPEGs via Wifi and automatically deletes old images from the SD card when it fills up – Camera stays in standby all the time (checking for Wifi, checking battery status, uploading images), only the sensor is activated/deactivated by the power button – This allows for a warning message on your phone when the battery needs recharging. Will prevent the problem of empty batteries when taking the camera out of the drawer for a snapshot

If you can sell that package for 700 bucks I’m sure you’ll have winner. The Nikon D3300 currently sells for 500$ with kit lens. It includes many parts “my” camera wouldn’t need (PDAF sensor, exposure meter, mirror mechanism, mechanical shutter, flash, kit lens, OVF, lens mount). Take those out and add an EVF, wifi and my suggested lens. I believe 700$ can be done.

I stand by my point though: the camera industry will decline. They can slow that trend for a few more years with the right cameras but they can’t stop it. Technology keeps improving but one day the improvements just don’t matter anymore to average people. Sorry, capitalism, everlasting growth just doesn’t work ;-)

Hello, I’m sorry to come so late to this wonderful chat. I think this is particular issue is a part of a big game, but I still do not know the name to this game. Please, let me give you some examples:

Sometimes I hear “this camera makes beautiful pictures”. And I always answer the same: “This is a nice tool, but the picture (the original idea) is in my brain and it’s seen by my eyes. My camera is only a tool to freeze and save my idea. But I take the pictures.

As far as I know better how to use my camera, my “idea” (my picture) will be better described.

No screwdriver takes the screws out by itself, you are the one how takes out the screws, and if you know very well how to use it, the screws will be out (or in) in a better way.

In the air pilots world (I’m a member) you can hear something similar. “This aircraft “flyes” very well”. And my answer is the same: This aircraft is very well designed, but I FLY the aircratf. And if I study and learn my aircraft perfectly I will fly nice, smooth and safe.

We should try not to give more prominence to machines that they already have,

We are coming to a world that is starting to think that computerized devices can do OUR JOB, or our hobbies, and that we only have to “point and shoot”.

A lot of compact cameras don’t even carry inside of it’s buying box the printed manual, because camera manufactorers have realized, that most people never read the manual. If you want to read it, please download it and print it.

Most people don’t know how to use its camera, and don’t even understand the basics of photography, like exposition, speed, ISO… They just want the camera to do everithing without even knowing the basic concepts of how to deal with the light.

Something is changing in this planet.

I think we still have time to correct our heading. Otherwise, we’ll finally have to fight against the machines. (I’ll be back! by A.S.)

On last november a Lufthansa Airbus A321 have a major incident flying from Bilbao (Spain) to Germany while climbing to cruise altitude. Two of the three stall sensors have a false indication that the aircraft was stalling, so the flight controls started to pitch down to recover from the false stall. They’ve lost more than 4.000 feet.

They were lucky because they already have reached high altitude, and have a margin to recover, otherwise they would be killed.

Of course they have disconnected autopilot and gone to manual mode (called “normal law”), but the flight control system of this machine is so “clever” that was still pitching down, without obeying pilot’s pitch up commands. So the pilots had finally disconnected some Air Data Computers (ADR) to recover from the pitch down situation.

Once they hade one ADR off, the aircraft went to what they call “alternate law” and they could fly the aircraft in “real manual”, just like in the old times.

The point is: What if they were so “young” and unexperienced to fly the aircraft like in the “old times”.

How many camera sales are photographers upgrading their kit as opposed to first-time purchases? Probably 99% are upgrades. Personally, I think camera sales have been inflated for years, and the reason for this has been the megapixel race. In the same way that mobile phone, tablet and computer sales are driven by the spec sheet, we’ve all been caught up in the megapixel race, quickly feeling that our camera purchase is no longer adequate and needs to be upgraded to the latest model with higher resolution. We have all been guilty of this to a degree, whether professional, enthusiast or beginner, fuelled of course by the manufacturers. In the video market we’re seeing this with 4K capability, but how few of us own 4K TV’s yet?? For stills photography, now we thankfully see a general consensus across the industry that megapixels are not everything, and we see manufacturers finally acknowledging this fact. So perhaps now camera sales are simply migrating towards a more natural and sustainable level, and the megapixel bubble has burst.

I think the camera market is oversaturatred personally. And i think it is over priced. People now have to spend $300-$400 every year or 2 on a new phone, plus all the accessories you need for said phone. Add to that the need for a new laptop every 3-4 years. Most tech these days is not durable. You used to buy a camera and use it for 10-20 years. I have had 4 Sony point and shoots, and after 2 years they pretty much sucked. So I stopped buying camera’s. I was tired of feeling like i had to get a new one because of electronic and software failures. It took me 3 months to decide to buy my Sony A6000 because there are too many options and too many variables. You walk into Sam’s Club, Wal-Mart, or Best Buy and there is a huge table of camera’s that all look the same. Sure, the sales person says this Nikon is good, but how many times has something you expected to be good turned out to be a piece of shit? Or how many times have you bought something only for it to be outdated in just a couple years? It is a risk people don’t want to take, because they don’t have to anymore. Their phone is a security blanket.

I think the value of photos has decreased a little bit too. Simply because of the sheer number of pictures that are taken now. When you had to develop the film and scan it to share it, seeing photos held more value. Now people can post shitty pictures and still get “likes” or thumbs ups. They can add a quick filter on IG and make their photo edgy or moody. So many AMAZING pictures of a sunset have been posted in the last 10 minutes, that the sunsets are not as prized.

Smartphone’s are the main reason camera sales are down. Period. It has nothing to do with buttons and menus on cameras being complicated. Kids today can root their phone, install custom ROMs, social network on 14 different sites, add watermarks to photo’s, etc. I am pretty sure they could handle figuring out the 3 main settings on a camera…. But why should they?

Most DSLRs and Mirorless cameras already have those simple functions, like “night portrait” “snow” “beach” “sport” “fireworks” “children’ “high key” “low key” you name it. I don’t understand what author is complaining about? For me all this stuff is a ballast. I’ve never used it and it simply clogs up the interface. If you are lazy to learn something then go and buy iphone.

I am surprised. I read more than half of the comments. I agree with some of the arguments of both parties (simplifying that there are two well divided camps). But I am surprised that, except the mention of the Leica X2, there is no mention/description of the idea the author is in my opinion shaping the contours: Would it be possible for DSLR/mirrorless manufacturers to DESIGN and MARKET for the masses an affordable camera with a “BIG” sensor, but without intimidating buttons and/or menu ? I mean, to basically merge smartphone “advantages” with such a sensor/optics. Maybe to change the paradigm of how settings are changed, too. Like the author pointed. In a way, a simplified and less expensive LX100, RX1R, or Fugi monofocal, or with a zoom, etc.

Now, would it work ? Honestly I’m not sure. (Personnaly no way, I wanted the “full” and ergonomic physical control :) I know several people who bought a entry-level DSLR without knowing what aperture means. Why then ? Well: it’s affordable and it looks professional. Plus they easily get better pics (definition, zoom, light…), so they are mostly happy.

Now a word about a point I didn’t see either. Why targeting the photographer and enthusiast / amateur ? (So add features) I think manufacturers partly count on the fact that we are the early adopters, who advise and convince our acquaintances to purchase a product. Maybe not even a DSLR nor a mirrorless, but for instance a Sony RX100 or an Oly Stylus 1, rather than a mediocre point and shoot.

Anyway, as usuall, what I find most interesting is not the article itself but the comments (and thinking, for those able) it generates. :)

In the 50’s through 70’s before autofocus 35mm cameras were introduced, good cameras required focusing, setting the aperture and shutter speed, learning how to load and unload film. Not for everybody. This complexity is why the Kodak Instamatic sold so well. Most digital cameras today have a green “easy” mode or Fully Auto mode, but it’s the rest of the features that scare the average consumer away. A few manufacturers have tried an easy high quality camera (panasonic g6 (?), but their sales were poor. We need a digital camera version of the Nikon EM film camera.

signed. i am a professional photographer who also does tech support for other photographers. i build remote controlled camera rigs. i can explain the usage of most cameras i have never laid hands on before to their owners faster than they can find their manual.

and as my private camera? i use my phone. or a Panasonic mirrorless (GF5) with a single focal length on P with auto-ISO and always -2/3 EV dialed in. i switch it on and hit the shutter button. and despite one of the best touchscreen interfaces i think that camera is way too complicated if i need to change something not overly obvious.

it’s way overdue that a manufacturer sits down and builds a modern camera interface without doing a gimmick laden monstrosity. Panasonic isnt too far from that. but i still have more hopes that phones will reduce their lag during activation, focus and capture of images.

I don’t think easy interface is going to change anything. Almost every camera has full auto mode and people who use this mode usually get fairly mediocre results (even out of expensive equipment). There is not that much room for improvement in full auto mode over Iphone. Surely, the bigger sensor on dedicated camera will have less noise but is it worth 500 dollars to people who don’t care about learning what aperture is. And my guess is that for average user spending lots of money to have a privilege of carrying extra weight and getting marginally better pictures is just not worth it. DSLRs are great for professionals and there is no replacement for DSLR in ultrawide or sports photography applications. But for most of consumers even mirrorless interchangeable lens system might be an overkill (not to mention the ridiculous prices).

I am an enthusiast that grew up with a film rangefinder, transitioned to DSLR and now use Iphone for 99 percent of my pictures. Iphone/ Smartphone is the modern day rangefinder, it is an easy to use, simple, fun, fixed lens camera, I don’t think most of people really need more than that. Surely, there is sharpness and low light performance but in most cases good pictures come from photographers skill and good light. Also, for last decade I had the misfortune of seeing too many people who know nothing of photography with DSLRs, they blind each other with pop up flash and use high burst rate to take 100 pictures of a trashcan. Maybe we could all be happy that these days are almost behind us (and welcome the era of “vintage rangefinder” equipped hipster ).

I see on that iPhone 6 gallery website, many of the photos, although shot on iPhones, have been made using VSCO, Snapseed, Olloclip lenses, etc. Have a look at those apps… You will see they emulate in software all of the controls an “advanced” camera has. Not exactly getting away from the complexity.

Whether cell phone cameras have made an impact on point-and-shoots and DSLRs I don’t know. I do still think that you need some element of manual control to capture good images in less than ideal scenarios.

When you don’t have time for that, there’s always auto mode.

And as for “Portrait” mode and a blurry background… very hard to do on a cell phone camera due to the size of the sensor and the physics involved.

I personally am moving away from my 5D Mk2 to a Sony A6000 (and A7 in future). The Sony has excellent auto modes, a large (APS-C) sensor and an acceptable range of lens choices. Add to that 11 fps shooting, face detection, a compact and light body, ability to control external flashes, phone/tablet remote control and wifi, and I think it is the camera the author is wishing for. Use it in auto or dive deeper as the abovementioned iPhone users have done via software.

Thank you so much for this kind of informative post. Photography is one kind of art. Your art gets more animated if your camera gets more updated features. I was watching your writing. Though it has some important and unique features it is also missing some features. I you tel me to rate this camera I will give 3 star on five. I have a video doorbell which has good qualities of camera and the doorbell is wireless. So it works as a security system.

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.